The Complexities of language in Co-Creation
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about collaboration and how ideas are born and problems are solved. A part of my inquiry grants me the opportunity to speak to many stakeholders at invention marathons called Hackathons.
I have an idea that I would like to share about the co-creation process learned from Hackathons. This is that…
The limitations of language as an isolated component of co-creation can make it difficult to understand a peer’s true intentions. Are they communicating to converge on a solution? Are they communicating to explore the substance of an idea or experience to develop more questions? Or some weird hybrid of both and what role do you play in the process?
I often find myself in this predicament. I may have an idea and sometimes I will express it to a friend or peer with the intention that they simply listen and help me develop questions to understand the problem, idea, or experience. Sometimes I need their help to eliminate solutions and find something that works the best. Other times I have no idea what I’m trying to achieve. In each of these experiences, I don’t believe I ever communicate what my intentions of the conversation are and what role my peer plays in this experience. This often creates confusion.
Context is king
The friends I call upon to share an idea with, understand what my intentions are in the conversation. This is because a relationship has been built where they understand my personal values, beliefs, attitudes, body language which provides them context into what type of conversation we’re having. It requires conversations where you fumble around in frustration due to communication noise. Co-creators develop a recognition of the influences in communication noise in relation to that individual and attempt to compensate accordingly.
Is this scalable?
This isn’t scalable simply due to available time. This means as teams expand, the number of misinterpretations between individuals increases exponentially. Not only can this stifle team efficiency but also individual personal development.
It would be false to assume small teams are naturally better at co-creation and understand each others “conversational needs”. This is an intentional process. Smaller teams have longer durations interacting with members and have the potential to be better than larger teams at fulfilling these conversational demands.
What are your thoughts? Do you know the role you play in a conversation with a team member? Have you thought about communicating the types of conversations you're having with peers before they begin? I would love to know!