Juiciness As Value

In responding to someone about what I meant by juiciness, I found myself writing something that I thought might be nice to spur on conversation here.

"Ah, juiciness. I'll bet you've experienced it before -- you know, that feeling on an undertaking like you and those you are engaged with could do anything -- walk through cognitive walls, scale buildings with a single leap. It adds that vitality -- I think it is a condition for getting into 'flow'. It is the difference between a dry, flat experience, where the work gets done but it's nothing special, and that sparkliness that some experiences seem to have. It's the essential ingredient that the methodologies often miss. I think it might be 'enjoyment' that was spoken of in the IXP forum. But enjoyment doesn't quite capture it for me. Juicy does. It's invigorating, gets my adrenaline flowing (in a good way), and engages me with all my enthusiasm and creativity."

Last week a colleague shared with me a fact he uncovered in a review of change management strategies. He said that the literature said that any job can get done with only 80% engagement -- but that real creativity was found in that last 20%. Most people only engage at the 80% level. But really cool projects engage us fully.

I can enjoy engaging at 80%. But I get really revved up engaging at 100%. Magic happens at that level of engagement. Juiciness.

So, I'm interested in the reactions that a word like 'juiciness' evoke in folks working on the technology side. (I'm also interested in what reactions it evokes in business folks too -- since they are supposed to be more hard-boiled.) I just haven't found a better word to describe the experience. Anyone got any suggestions?

AmySchwab?

I word just popped into my head that may be, for me, what others mean by "enjoyment" or "juiciness". That word is "fulfillment". Another term might be "in the zone" (the whole team, not just an individual), when you are so "in sync" with yourself, and the others around you, and your environment, that you wake up in the morning and look forward to going to work with your teammates on your project because both make you feel fulfilled, and you think "manohman - I can't believe I'm actually getting paid to do this!"

BradAppleton?

I can't speak for everyone in the XP world, but most of the folks into XP/Agile seem to care about providing real value. They may call it having fun, but they mean much more than that. If they were talking to their kids who had spent all day playing in a pool, they probably wouldn't be able to convince them (or themselves) that they had more fun at work today than the kids had. It probably wouldn't be difficult to convince themselves, at least, that they had a more fulfilling day.

I don't know about you guys, but I try to teach my children to strive toward fulfilling things in life. I don't have to teach them how to have fun... they're professionals. I've got to teach them when they need to get their focus off "fun" (while also letting them know there are times when "fun" is a thing they should focus on). Although fun at work is a good thing, it is not a primary goal. If I were on Jonas Saulk's team, I'd be more driven by the desire to contribute to the finding of a polio vaccine than whether it felt like Disneyland in the lab... Though I'd be de-motivated by someone who felt a Koosh-ball in the lab was a sign of not taking the task seriously enough.

An Anti-pattern is what I see so often, people who just care about getting their paycheck and will do just enough to get it. They may or may not be pleasant people and they don't necessarily have a problem with people doing a good job, they just don't have it as a value. Recently someone asked me what the project I had just finished a week of consulting needed most to succeed ("with XP" was implied in the question). Without hesitation, I simply responded that they needed "to care". Although there were some XP practices they weren't executing well, or at all, that wasn't the main problem at all. If you pointed out that there would be benefits to doing some practice, they may believe you, but not enough to actually take any steps from the status quo to do it. What they were doing was something in their comfort zone and unless they felt their job was threatened (directly or indirectly) by continuing in the status quo, there would be no action taken.

Being "in the zone", to me, is somewhat different than fulfillment, though they often overlap. I can experience fulfillment at the end of a very difficult week of meetings in which virtually nothing was accomplished other than some breakthrough of communication. The week might not have had a single "in the zone" moment. On the other hand, I've had a few times when I was "in the zone" with the folks around me, but by the end of the week, something hit me that made me feel like the week was a waste of time. Whether or not that feeling is short-lived, it illustrates the difference. Most of the time I've been "in the zone", however, were very fulfilling times. I'd suggest that a good XP project has people spending 75+% in the zone and 90+% being fulfilled (recognizing that 78% of statistics are made up on the spot :-).

KenAuer?

Good for you! I wonder how much of it has to do with whether one is primarily motivated intrinsically versus extrinsically. I know sometimes I've been in the situation of being told I needed to "not care" - which I found almost offensive, and that it clearly illuminated what the real problem was.

So what is the difference between feeling fulfilled, versus feeling gratified, versus feeling "a sense of accomplishment"? Which ones of those suggests a team-wide feeling as much as an individual feeling? Does reciprocity come in to play somewhere? is it a matter of mutual fulfillment? Somehow I still like fulfillment better than gratified or contented or accomplishment. Not sure why, but it just gives me more of an image of a "more complete" and more satisfying achievement than "contented" or "gratified" does.

BradAppleton?

I don't deal that much in the XP/Agile world -- and in my world, that includes a cross-section of almost everyone (or so it often seems), everyone cares about providing 'real' value. It is just that each of them often defines 'real' value in a somewhat different way. Just like each defines juiciness somewhat differently. Each is in the right -- for themselves. Each could be absolutely wrong if they were deciding for someone else what it 'should' mean.

more fun Gee, since many of the people that I know went into their profession because it was something they enjoyed, why not have fun? However, fun, just like juiciness or fulfillment or whatever else it is called, cannot be mandatory. Or it leaches the juice right out of it.

work, and their idea of "fun" relates solely to their interactions with other people on the job and the relationships they build and sustain. They could honestly care less about whether the fruits of their labor are "good" or not, so long as they person that evaluates their performance gives them good reviews and they enjoy the people they interact with. (then again, maybe that is their "fulfillment").

I suspect that this is, indeed, their fulfillment. I have a good friend (a Myers Briggs ENTJ) who cares primarily about how the people around him are doing. He does care about the 'quality' of the work being done and the product being produced but what really jazzes him is seeing his people feeling satisfied. I suspect this has a relationship to type.

Anti-pattern? What is that?

What I see are people who have forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that they could use their work as a medium for doing something they love. Most often (and this is one of the keys of creating juiciness -- and creating a real community) if they can find their project within the overall project -- their purpose, they are more than willing to offer up that last 20% that results in real creativity.

And what would this 'caring' look like that would tell you what their internal state is? Did you ask them? primarily motivated intrinsically versus extrinsically. I know sometimes I've been in the situation of being told I needed to "not care" - which I found almost offensive, and that it clearly illuminated what the real problem was. I don't get it. What WAS the real problem????? And how did you ascertain that it was the 'real' problem?

gratified, versus feeling "a sense of accomplishment"? Which ones of those suggests a team-wide feeling as much as an individual feeling? Does reciprocity come in to play somewhere? is it a matter of mutual fulfillment? Somehow I still like fulfillment better than gratified or contented or accomplishment. Not sure why, but it just gives me more of an image of a "more complete" and more satisfying achievement than "contented" or "gratified" does.

One way of really destroying a community is to insist that your juiciness / fulfillment/enjoyment is dependent upon the actions or behaviors of others on the team. I propose that your juiciness is your own business -- for you to pursue for yourself. I always think it is useful to see if you can encourage others to find juiciness in their work too (in whatever way they define that term) -- two juicies seem to do more than 'just' add up. How would you measure a 'team-wide' feeling? And would it ruin the 'team-wide' feeling if one of you weren't feeling fulfilled?

We, sometimes propose that everyone through our workshop be delighted at the end of a certain simulation. We've seen numerous groups of all different make ups actually get to delight (or at least that's what they testify -- with smiles on their faces and a light feeling in the room). However, sometimes the best that can be done (and this is completely dependent upon each individual and his/her desire for delight or belief that delight is possible -- and each person's definition of what delights them) is for somewhat satisfied, or for not miserable. We've never been able to figure out what about being delighted so oppresses them. But some folks seem to be predisposed against delight in the workplace. Perhaps it is how they were raised.

AmySchwab?

RobertMartin?

I'd like to join the choir and and sing ayh! to fulfillment. thank you Brad!

this discussion is yet another proof to me that collaboration is a winning strategy; I can still remember vividly the discussion Josh and I had about choosing the word "fun" as one of the values. I bluntly declared that it was a stupid term, for reasons similar to Ken's. (and I still think that in a proffesional context it invites the listner to flip the bozo bit on you.) but the thing is, we couldn't find a better term. Josh came with Enjoyment, which was acceptable, but I didn't think it was it. what I was looking for is something that encompasses that sense of accomplishment, continious growth , feel of total engagement and beeing energized, and all these other things that come together to give you the sense of pride in your craft. fulfillment does it to me. I also find it to be a very light and soothing word. and enticing.

BennySadeh?

Typical me....I'm coming in late, with a contrary opinion..:-)

Fulfillment has too much sense of finality for me - it seems to describe the end of the journey, not the journey itself. My crack at an alternative is "engaged", or perhaps "fully engaged" - I want my mind, my heart, and sometimes even my body to be engaged by the task at hand. Perhaps that will lead to fulfillment, but I'm not always confident of that when I begin. And sometimes I enjoy (oops, there's that word again) being engaged by tasks that are essentially diversions.

SteveHayes?

"We have fun!" is one of the core principles of our organization. I suppose it might be one of the reasons some people decide not to come work with us, but we wouldn't give it up for anything.

DougSwartz?

When I joined Sun four years ago, the orientation included a 10-minute video by CEO Scott McNealy? about having fun. He said something like, "If you're not having fun, talk to your manager or your coworkers. Change whatever you have to change to make your job fun!" He meant it, too. And, by golly, it was fun!

DaleEmery?