It was fascinating watching that scenario again. I'm wondering, Amrita and Rami, what your thoughts are, what comes to the forefront as you watch it again? >> Well, for me, it looked like everyone was stuck to their frame, and they had a hard time looking outside of the frame. So Amy, for example, she's a head of legal and contracts, right? She was only focused on the risks involved in the new business opportunity. So she was not even considering the cost pressures the organization is facing, the market realities that they are facing and they might have to face later. And for her, she was almost convinced that this entire project is a train wreck. And [LAUGH] there's a disaster looming if they start manufacturing and selling their own brand of computers. So to me, it appeared she was either not willing or was not aware of the bigger picture when they came to the meeting. What do you think? >> Well, it's interesting that you touched upon that. It is a high-pressure situation when you're inventing and when you're innovating, and you've got it on this date, and you've got a designer who's excited. But when the frame opened, the scene opened, you could see, already, that they were stuck, just from the very beginning. And it seemed as if every member in the group was acting out a part, a part of staying within my straightjacket of roles and my frame. And all of them, well-intentioned, they're clearly intelligent, they're clearly competent. But together, it's almost like the George Washington Bridge story. They all want to solve the problem, they all want to do well. But somehow, they are not able to get themselves unstuck. Here again, a wonderful example. >> One of the things that strikes me as I watch it again, and maybe you saw this as well, is that we start to identify each character with what they're saying as though it's about their personality or the way they are, rather than what they're representing in the organization. And I think this is a mistake that we often make. And it's one that Alderfer, an important organizational theorist, points out when he talks about embedded group theory, and that we all carry around with us multiple group identities. And at different times, those will be coming to the forefront. So as you were saying, the finance person was beating the finance drum. And the legal person who, I think, Rami, you said you've known some people like that. >> That's my favorite character. [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] Was sure that it was going to fail, as you noticed. One thing we'd like you to think about is to back up some and think about people's role and the role they have in the organization, not to so much about what their personalities seem to be like. >> So we ask these actors to highlight each of their frames. And we asked them to speak directly to the camera so you can understand them more clearly about the frame that they are coming with. And we've all been through, I'm sure, a number of meetings where we argue, there are clashes, there are conflicts. Maybe, and I'm just wondering out aloud, maybe if we were able to get out of a frame and start even wanting to look at or understand the other person's frame, maybe the meeting could be more productive. Maybe we can all learn from each other. >> Yes, that's a big area to explore, isn't it? So when we look so far that we've come, we've listened to this fascinating story that you said about the George Washington Bridge, about the scenario that unfolded in front of us. And then of course, the theory. I remember, was it Kurt Lewin who said, there's nothing so practical as a good theory to understand a situation in front of us? But at the same time, you see, when we all have responsibility, and it's cutting-edge pressure, and I'm sure it is in your role, too, it is difficult to step outside and say, Rami, I'm going to understand your point of view. >> Mm-hm. >> My goal, my boss notwithstanding, Alan, I'm going to really listen to you. And Dana, I'm going to be curious about you, even though there is no lacks in time pressure, there is no lacks in the goals getting met, and right outside is your boss waiting for an answer. What happened in the meeting? Fascinating isn't it? >> I'm stuck by the time pressure that this group has. They've got nine months. Well, nine months is a long time. No, it's not, if you got to coordinate all these activities. >> Mm-hm. >> And it's very, very clear, Rami, you pointed out that we use the side bars where the actor faced the camera and said what was in their head. Think about that, some of the most important information that was given to us observing this scene wasn't given to each other. It wasn't put on the table and talked about. The one example that I'm thinking of is this is the opportunity. Everybody sees the problems. But the opportunity is to create a new product, and give these people a real purpose, and something new to do, and a very exciting product for the first time. And one of the actors, the CEO, says, this is like jumping rope, and you've got to jump in at the right time. I think that conveys a very interesting aspect that wasn't shared, except with us, the observers in this scene. So the question is are we really putting our issues on the table? Are we really talking about them openly in a constructive way, in an open way, as opposed to, I've been brought to this meeting because I'm supposed to represent this point of view? And if you just do that, you're going to see all the obstacles and all the problems with why we can't do this. Somewhere along the line, you do have to step back, just like in the bridge story, and think about the whole system and the whole opportunity, in this case. And what would it take for this to happen, not all the things that will get in the way to prevent it from happening. They seem to be focused on the obstacles, not the opportunities. So that's one of the big things that I'm seeing when I see it. And again, I'm struck by the fact that we are so trained in analytical thinking, where we break things into parts, and we figure out the parts, and then we try to assemble the parts into a solution. In systems thinking, we're really trying to understand what needs to be explained by putting it in the context of a larger system. And the larger system here is this opportunity to develop a new product. But if everyone's doing their piece, they're not going to get there. They're not going to solve that problem. That's what we've seen, that's what I've seen, and I've enjoyed hearing what Dana, and Rami, and Amrita see. What do you see when you look at this scene? You probably picked up on some things that we might not have picked up on, based on how you think about problems or who you identify with on that team. So you have a seat at our table, you're part of this committee. What do you see? We invite you to write those in your journal or put them into the text box. And our TA will look at those in the course.
