Chapitre 1
Unlocking the Power of Collaborative Innovation
In a world where complex challenges defy traditional solutions, "Strategic Doing" emerges as a beacon of practical wisdom. When Yo-Yo Ma visited Youngstown, Ohio, he witnessed firsthand how Ed Morrison guided citizens to identify assets, develop plans, and establish next steps in just one hour-a process that would transform communities nationwide. Since its inception in Oklahoma City in 1993, Strategic Doing has revitalized struggling cities, reinvented industries, and built innovative networks across sectors. This methodology, refined over decades at Purdue University's Agile Strategy Lab, has become a global movement with practitioners in Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Europe. Unlike typical management fads, Strategic Doing represents a discipline specifically designed for our networked world-one that transforms endless meetings into meaningful collaboration through ten practical skills anyone can learn but no one can master alone.
Chapitre 2
Navigating a Networked World: Why Traditional Approaches Fail
We face increasingly complex challenges embedded in systems where many independent components interact and adapt to each other. From companies struggling with innovation to communities confronting public health crises to global climate change-these "wicked problems" defy traditional approaches yet we continue addressing them with outdated mindsets.
Our world has fundamentally shifted from hierarchical structures to networks. Before the mid-1800s, extended families largely controlled their work rhythms. The industrial revolution introduced hierarchies where supervisors controlled workers' activities-a model that spread across sectors. Early Hollywood exemplifies this structure, with studios like MGM employing everyone from directors to theater managers in rigid hierarchies.
Networks, by contrast, form around assets with a core group closely connected and more loosely connected people beyond. They have no top or bottom, no single entity giving directions, and porous boundaries where people move between core and periphery. Networks connect to other networks through "boundary spanners"-people belonging to multiple networks.
Networks serve different functions: advocacy networks advance causes without members necessarily knowing each other; learning networks help people increase knowledge in specific areas; and most valuable are innovating networks, where people create new value together-like Apple's iPod ecosystem involving dozens of companies providing hardware, music distribution, and accessories.
Traditional strategic planning, rooted in military thinking and 1960s business schools, was designed for hierarchical organizations with stable environments and clear command structures. This approach falters in today's world dominated by open, loosely connected networks where people join voluntarily to accomplish specific tasks.
The S-Curve model illustrates how change happens slowly initially, accelerates rapidly during growth, then plateaus before declining. For organizations approaching plateau, recognizing their position is vital to avoid decline. Ideally, they should transition to a new S-Curve before the current one declines-a risky period of being "between curves," like a trapeze artist letting go of one bar before grasping the next.
To navigate our networked world effectively, we must transform ourselves in three fundamental ways: think differently (developing strategy collaboratively), behave differently (establishing ground rules that foster trust), and "do" differently (adopting agile approaches from software development that involve constant experimentation with lessons shared across collaborative networks).
Chapitre 3
Creating Safe Spaces for Meaningful Conversation
Deep conversations focus on ideas rather than people or events. Research from the University of Arizona shows well-being correlates with having more substantive conversations-the happiest study participants had one-third as much small talk and twice as many deep conversations as the unhappiest ones.
Focused conversations require discipline in our distraction-filled world. Research from Carnegie Mellon shows we typically experience interruptions every 11 minutes, yet need 25 minutes to fully refocus afterward. This constant toggling between tasks creates a cognitive deficit that prevents sustained attention.
The "Goldilocks principle" applies to group size-there's too small, too big, and just right. Jeff Bezos's "two-pizza rule" aligns with research showing optimal group sizes of five to seven people. Studies indicate each person beyond seven reduces team effectiveness by 10%, and odd-numbered groups generally outperform even-numbered ones.
Physical location matters for strategic conversations. Neutral territory prevents real or perceived "home field advantage" and minimizes distractions. Children's museums can be particularly effective through the "teddy bear principle"-childhood cues promote prosocial behavior among adults.
Beyond physical settings, psychological safety-the shared belief that team members can take interpersonal risks without punishment-is crucial. Amy Edmondson's research shows members of psychologically safe teams feel accepted and respected. The Constitutional Convention offers historical precedent, where James Madison recorded specific rules of engagement that fostered productive dialogue among strong personalities.
Agile leaders establish modern equivalents to civility rules-like "put your smartphones away" during deep conversations. Another powerful practice is ensuring "equity of voice"-where every member talks approximately the same amount of time, which research shows produces better outcomes. In Flint, Michigan, where conversations about poverty, violence, and racism are emotionally charged, Bob Brown demonstrated this skill by having everyone throw their business cards in the trash, symbolizing that everyone-from foundation presidents to formerly incarcerated individuals-would be equal contributors to their shared future.
Chapitre 4
Framing Conversations with Powerful Questions
Edwin Land's invention of instant photography began when his daughter asked, "Why can't we see the picture right now?"-a question that completely reframed his thinking. Every conversation begins with invisible frames that set boundaries; bringing these to the surface with powerful questions can open new opportunities. As David Cooperrider says, "we live in the world our questions create."
Ronald Heifetz distinguishes between technical and adaptive questions. Technical questions have clear problem definitions and solutions that can be addressed with expert knowledge. Adaptive questions have no clear answers and require questioning fundamental assumptions. These questions-like "How could we become the healthiest county in the state?"-have multiple possible solutions and require experimentation, innovation, and collective intelligence.
With complex challenges, problem-centered conversations can lead to endless loops of analysis without action. Using climate change as an example, asking "Why is climate change occurring?" leads to a cascade of deeper "why" questions that create an unproductive cycle. By shifting to opportunity-focused questions, we can escape this loop and explore alternatives.
When crafting questions, replace judgment-implying words like "can" and "should" with possibility-opening words like "might": "How might we..." This defers judgment and opens possibilities. Compare "What can we do to minimize customer complaints?" with "When have customers been most pleased with our service and what might we learn from those moments?" The latter focuses on what we want more of, not less.
Steve Jobs exemplified this by asking "What if computers were small and personal?" rather than "How do we compete with IBM?"-a six-word question that attracted the team that made Apple a leader in innovation. Great questions are surprising, cause reflection, touch hearts, prompt relationship-building stories, and reframe reality. You'll know you've found the right question when people respond with enthusiasm and purpose.
Chapitre 5
Identifying Hidden Assets for Collaborative Action
Many people operate in "If Only Land," constantly focusing on what they wish they had rather than what they already possess. This mindset stems from hierarchical thinking, where we expect someone with more authority to provide needed resources. In networks, there's no top or bottom-no designated resource provider. We must first inventory resources we and our network partners already have available.
Assets are any resources that could potentially help us move toward a particular outcome. While accounting defines assets in monetary terms, in Strategic Doing they encompass much more. Physical and natural assets include real estate, meeting spaces, equipment, and their virtual equivalents. Skill and knowledge assets include abilities like writing, design, public speaking, and subject matter expertise. Social assets are people or groups with whom someone in your network has a personal connection. Capital assets include financial resources or donated services.
When identifying assets, three key principles apply. First, direct influence is critical-if it's not your asset or one you can control, it's not truly an asset. Second, each person makes autonomous decisions about sharing their assets; these choices must be respected. Finally, true assets are actionable-we need to describe them specifically enough to understand how they might be used.
Everyone has assets, though many are hidden-sometimes even from ourselves. These often include hobbies, skills, or interests pursued independently over years. One powerful example involved a group addressing workforce development for 21st-century manufacturing. A member reluctantly shared her interest in both manufacturing and sustainability, along with experience in curriculum design. This revelation led to the first national "green collar" certification program for manufacturing workers.
In improvisation, participants are told to "bring a brick, not a cathedral"-meaning each person contributes small elements rather than complete solutions. Similarly, with Strategic Doing, no one needs a fully formed concept; we start with what we have-"a few bricks"-and build together. While your assets may seem insufficient for big challenges, this apparent limitation has a powerful advantage: you can start immediately without waiting for permission, funding, or additional resources.
Chapitre 6
Creating New Value Through Recombinant Innovation
The magic happens when assets get combined, creating value greater than the sum of the parts. This recombinant innovation-taking existing elements and combining them in new ways-drives breakthrough solutions, from Caesar Cardini's impromptu invention of the Caesar salad to modern GPS technology that links satellite, atomic clock, and radio technologies.
Caesar Cardini's famous salad emerged from necessity when he ran out of menu items on a busy Fourth of July weekend in 1924. Using available ingredients-romaine lettuce, eggs, olive oil, and his flair for tableside presentation-he created a dish that's commanded premium prices for nearly a century. Similarly, Italian chefs typically create popular new dishes by combining familiar ingredients in unexpected ways, often adding one unfamiliar element.
While many of us excel at vertical thinking-exploring topics in depth-innovation requires horizontal thinking across disciplines. The Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering at Purdue exemplifies this approach by bringing together engineers, nurses, and pharmacists to improve healthcare systems. This "Medici effect" creates insights at the intersection of different fields. As Stephen Johnson notes, innovations emerge not from "Eureka!" moments but from exploring connections at the edges of what currently exists-what he calls the "adjacent possible."
Horizontal thinking is a learnable skill. Michael Michalko suggests taking a "thought walk"-physically moving through a space while noting random objects encountered. By identifying characteristics of these unrelated items and forcing connections to your problem, you can generate unexpected insights. One engineer struggling with ice removal from power lines took a walk and encountered honey for sale with a bear cutout. This led him to consider bears climbing poles to reach honey, which sparked the idea of vibration as a solution. Eventually, this thinking path led to using helicopters hovering over power lines to vibrate ice off.
When groups think horizontally together, they create an "extended mind" as described by philosopher Andy Clark and cognitive scientist David Chalmers. Our minds extend beyond our bodies into our environment, possessions, and community. In Strategic Doing, mapping collective assets essentially maps this extended mind. With just 5-7 people each identifying five assets, a group creates 25-30 assets that can be combined in countless ways.
Milwaukee transformed its economy by linking and leveraging water-related assets. In 2008, a workshop with the Milwaukee Water Council explored how the city could become a global leader in freshwater technologies. Participants discovered they had laboratories and businesses addressing different aspects of the water cycle. During the workshop, two CEOs immediately offered their research labs to any water technology start-up, creating a powerful new asset that accelerated innovation. Today, Milwaukee's Water Council is a global leader with over 200 water technology businesses, many in a revitalized "Water Technology District."
Chapitre 7
Finding the "Big Easy" for Maximum Impact
After identifying numerous opportunities by linking assets, we face the challenge of selecting which to pursue first, given our limited resources. Various decision-making methods each have their strengths. Consensus requires everyone's support for a decision, though it can be time-consuming. "Consensus minus one" allows moving forward unless two or more people object. Majority voting is straightforward but risks ongoing debate if votes are close. "Sticky dot voting" lets people distribute multiple votes among options.
Regardless of method, fairness and transparency are essential for building trust. When people consider a process fair, their enthusiasm grows even if they didn't initially support the chosen idea. Building trust takes time initially but ultimately increases speed-a paradox of agile organizations.
The 2x2 matrix offers an alternative decision-making approach that preserves fairness while considering two criteria simultaneously. When using the 2x2 matrix, focus on impact and ease of implementation-what we call the "Big Easy." This approach identifies opportunities with the largest impact that are also the easiest to implement, which might seem counterintuitive. The "Big" aspect inspires people emotionally, while the "Easy" ensures practical immediate steps.
This combination avoids two common risks: selecting something too difficult that discourages the team, or something inconsequential that nobody cares about. For new teams, starting with small, achievable projects builds trust before tackling larger opportunities. Even seemingly modest projects like downtown planters can attract attention, support, and eventually more resources.
Group intuition is a powerful tool when making complicated choices. While some may doubt the unscientific nature of the Big Easy approach, the combined judgment of well-informed people typically leads in the right direction. If doubters emerge, structure next steps like software developers do-take baby steps to "try out" the Big Easy. This agile approach allows for quick pivots if an opportunity proves to be a dud.
In southern Indiana, local leaders initially focused on repurposing an underutilized outlet mall into an agricultural distribution hub, but progress stalled for years. When conversations shifted to focus on existing assets rather than deficits, new opportunities emerged. Tim Burton, an IT entrepreneur with a side business making maple syrup, proposed creating a maple syrup festival. Research revealed no community had claimed a national maple syrup festival, so tiny Medora, Indiana (population 697) seized the opportunity. Within 15 months, they launched the first National Maple Syrup Festival, which grew to attract thousands of visitors. Tim eventually sold his IT business to focus full-time on Burton's Maplewood Farms, developing premium syrup products that now sell to fine chefs nationwide.
Chapitre 8
Converting Ideas to Measurable Outcomes
Vision statements often become empty collections of words that say nothing about an organization's core mission, despite taking months to craft and costing significant consulting fees. Rather than creating vague statements, agile leaders drive conversations deeper to explore what people truly hope for and dream about.
Like an architect who asks clients about experiences they want in a kitchen rather than focusing on surface-level design preferences, this approach transcends superficial disagreements. When two people have different aesthetic visions, focusing on desired experiences-good food, wine, laughter, easy cleanup-allows the architect to design a space that satisfies both without compromising either's core needs.
When helping groups adopt agile strategy, ask three qualitative questions: "If we are successful, what will we see?", "What will we feel?", and "Whose lives will be different and how?" These questions encourage people to imagine success in specific, descriptive terms rather than abstract concepts. This visualization process is called prospection-essentially reminiscing forward. Just as reminiscing about the past triggers dopamine release and emotional connection, prospection creates emotional investment in a successful future.
Metrics create a common language that ensures everyone is talking about the same outcome. While many dislike metrics because they're often used to judge success or failure, here they serve to develop shared understanding and alignment. When defining success metrics, you don't necessarily commit to gathering the data-you're simply using the exercise to clarify what success looks like. Without this specificity, groups risk working toward different interpretations of vague goals like "student engagement." As one Chinese colleague expressed regarding partnerships: problems arise when partners end up "sleeping in the same bed but dreaming different dreams."
When Delphi Automotive cut 600 high-paying jobs in Kokomo, Indiana in 2005, local leaders partnered with Purdue University to secure a $15 million Department of Labor WIRED grant. The Purdue team structured the grant like venture capitalists, using three-quarters of the money as an opportunity fund for collaborative projects across the 12-county region. They required partners to establish their own success metrics (about 200 in total) and distributed funding in stages-small amounts for exploratory work, more for successful demonstrations, and larger amounts for full implementation. This outcome-focused approach yielded impressive results: the project achieved three times its proposed goals, and while representing only 8% of national WIRED funding, it accounted for 40% of progress toward national goals. Most importantly, 80% of initiatives remained active two years after the grant ended.
Chapitre 9
Taking Small Steps to Build Momentum
Imagine standing on a beach looking at a distant island, with your kayak beside you and limited daylight remaining. You could spend time meticulously planning your trip-calculating wind strength and direction, wave patterns, weather forecasts, tides, and currents-or you could simply launch your kayak and start paddling, making adjustments as you go. This metaphor introduces the seventh Strategic Doing skill: starting with small, experimental steps rather than exhaustive planning.
When tackling complex challenges, we often become paralyzed by their magnitude. Karl Weick's influential work on "small wins" shows that addressing large-scale problems with smaller, manageable tasks reduces risk and increases accomplishment. Similarly, Elizabeth Gerber's "low fidelity prototyping" speeds development by reframing failure as learning, improving team communication, providing a sense of progress, and boosting creative confidence. Jeanne Liedtka's "learning launches" generate practical knowledge through experimentation rather than time-consuming analysis that might paralyze action.
Effective starting projects follow the "Goldilocks Rule"-typically lasting 90-120 days (not too short, not too long). They must engage everyone on the team to build trust, create a "buzz" that generates a new narrative about what's possible through collaboration, test key assumptions about the work, and crucially, not require permission that could delay or derail momentum.
Rather than detailed project plans, starting projects need logical "guideposts"-key points along the way that warn if you're getting off course. These guideposts help manage risks and confirm you can complete the project in reasonable time. Initial projects should both stand alone and form part of a series. When one nears completion, you'll see what adjustments to make for the next project based on what you've learned.
The Epicenter project, funded by the National Science Foundation and awarded to Stanford University and VentureWell in 2011, aimed to empower undergraduate engineering students by redesigning engineering education across 50 institutions. Rather than getting caught in the "bureaucratic buzzsaw" of formal curriculum changes, they expanded the focus to include broader learning experiences that didn't require lengthy approval processes. Teams of 3-8 people from each school identified small starting projects-like creating learning modules, small makerspaces, or innovation competitions-that could be completed quickly without formal approval. This approach yielded impressive results: over three years, more than 500 projects launched across the participating schools, with one university completing as many as 31 projects.
Chapitre 10
Distributing Leadership Through Action Plans
Great teams often develop after years of working together, but what happens when a group needs to be productive immediately? Agile leadership ensures good ideas move forward by distributing implementation responsibility among all group members. There are no spectators-just different roles with modest individual commitments that collectively create significant progress.
While we typically think of leadership as residing in a single person, an evolution toward shared leadership is underway. Rather than focusing on the individual leader, this approach treats leadership as a shared characteristic of a group, allowing teams to tackle complex challenges by combining members' varied leadership abilities.
A documented action plan represents shared leadership in its most practical form. As the Chinese proverb states, "The palest ink is better than the best memory"-capturing agreements in writing prevents losing valuable thinking. For complex environments where conditions change rapidly, limit action plans to short timeframes of about 30 days.
Action plans are promises that build trust when kept. According to Donald Sull and Charles Spinosa, organizations struggle with strategy execution partly because they fail to develop clear commitments systematically, which undermines trust.
Micro-commitments-small, manageable promises-effectively build trust at scale. Just as small financial commitments accumulate into significant savings or brief daily writing sessions can complete a dissertation, modest action commitments allow group members to participate without overwhelming their existing responsibilities. As the group sees progress and trust grows, these commitments naturally expand beyond their initial "micro" scale.
Creating effective action plans requires attention to detail. Each item should specify: who (a specific person or two, never "everyone"), what (specific actions), deliverable (tangible output), and by when (specific dates staggered throughout the 30-day period). Though leadership is shared, an agile leader takes responsibility for developing the plan by personally engaging each member: "Javier, what can you do? Mary, what can you do?" Everyone should commit something-typically about an hour of their own time-with exceptions only for major life events or urgent temporary responsibilities.
The power of this approach is that when 5-7 people each take small steps, collectively they make significant progress. These micro-commitments are difficult to refuse, build trust as they're fulfilled, and illuminate the path forward.
Chapitre 11
Creating Learning Loops to Sustain Momentum
Just as a thermostat provides feedback to a heating system, agile strategy efforts need learning loops to stay on track. Unlike thermostats that simply react to current conditions, we need "double-loop learning" that questions our assumptions and improves our approach over time. The 30/30 meeting structure-reviewing what happened in the last 30 days and planning for the next 30-creates this essential feedback mechanism, allowing teams to make adjustments based on what they've learned.
While a thermostat monitors temperature continuously without memory of previous cycles, agile leaders need learning loops that build upon past experiences. Drawing from Chris Argyris's concept of "double-loop learning," these feedback mechanisms don't just ask whether we're on track but question whether our original goals were appropriate. Though 30 days is the standard interval, teams might need 7/7s in turbulent environments or extend to longer periods in more stable situations.
Like personal habits that deliver benefits through consistency, 30/30s create powerful organizational routines. Among the five authors' 50+ years of experience, this practice most clearly distinguishes successful initiatives from those with limited impact. These meetings don't need to be lengthy-the more regularly you meet, the more efficient they become as team members arrive prepared to report results and volunteer for next steps. Trust builds with each cycle of micro-commitments, fueling success.
Implementing 30/30s requires a simple agenda: What did we learn in the last 30 days? Does our chosen outcome still make sense? Are we on track with current work? When will we next meet? This last question is crucial-schedule the next meeting while everyone is present. These regular check-ins build accountability and reveal patterns quickly, allowing teams to address issues before projects suffer.
In Alabama's Muscle Shoals region, famous for its music studios but struggling economically after losing 1,900 manufacturing jobs in 2014, a powerful collaboration emerged. The University of North Alabama, Shoals Chamber of Commerce, and Shoals Business Incubator formed the Shoals Shift Project to develop a digital economy and retain graduates. Committed to "doing, not waiting," the team met every 4-6 weeks since 2014, allowing them to experiment rapidly-like launching a business plan competition immediately rather than spending a year planning. This rhythm of regular meetings helped them secure community support, raise over $200,000 annually, win nearly $1 million from the Appalachian Regional Commission, and create 15 student startups generating jobs and capital.
Chapitre 12
Reinforcing New Collaborative Habits
Establishing new habits-whether personal or organizational-presents significant challenges. The final Strategic Doing skill addresses how agile leaders can reinforce collaborative behaviors through three key practices: nudging, connecting, and promoting.
Nudging serves two functions: ensuring task completion and establishing positive group norms. Proactive nudging involves explicitly urging each person to fulfill commitments through personalized check-ins. Digital nudges work best when personalized-adding names increases response rates dramatically. Even better is taking ownership: "I've booked you a place... Good luck!" can triple participation. Behavioral economics offers more subtle nudging by changing environments to make desired behaviors happen naturally. The ultimate goal is building trust as people align words with actions. When micro-commitments accumulate, group trust strengthens like strands twisted into rope, distributing tension evenly and increasing collective capacity.
While nudging binds the strands of our network rope together, connecting adds more strands by intentionally growing the network. Each addition brings new resources and assets for future work. Sometimes we connect people for specific needs; other times we sense potential value and create relationships before needs arise. "Closing the triangle" works well-identifying someone in your network who shares interests with someone new, then introducing them via email with specific context about each person's background and potential mutual benefit.
Unless engaged in espionage, we must publicize our successes. Promotion attracts more people to our network and demonstrates credibility to potential funders-people with resources make investment decisions partly based on track record. Promotion methods vary widely from informal conversations with decision-makers to comprehensive social media campaigns. Everyone in the group should prepare an "elevator pitch"-a clear description deliverable in under two minutes-to explain our work effectively to others.
The person who takes on nudging, connecting, and promoting becomes the "Chief Doing Officer" (CDO). This isn't about criticism but supporting the group's goals through environmental cues and choice architecture. Creative nudging approaches include shared folders for progress reports, collaborative checklists (positive, not punitive), thoughtful use of "reply all" to celebrate completions, and organizing field trips to see successful teams in action.
A case study with a defense contractor demonstrates how a Chief Doing Officer operates in practice. The New Jersey Innovation Institute partnered with a global aerospace firm to experiment with innovation tools for condition-based maintenance solutions. Mike van Ter Sluis served as CDO, organizing workshops with ninety New Jersey companies with relevant expertise. Mike tracked micro-commitments, nudged participants to stay on track, documented discussions, connected additional experts as needed, and created an investment prospectus that pulled together the group's work.
Chapitre 13
Putting It All Together: The Strategic Doing Framework
Each of the ten skills we've introduced stands powerfully on its own but creates even greater transformation when used together. Creating safe conversational spaces changes bad conversational habits. Focusing on what the question should be-before answering it-transforms group engagement. The Big Easy matrix helps balance impact against implementation ease, making complex decisions manageable.
While each skill is powerful individually, they work together in a coherent framework for building complex collaborations. Like flocks of birds creating complex formations by following simple rules, human collaborations emerge when we follow these ten skills. This framework incorporates practices from psychology, strategic management, organizational development, cognitive science, behavioral economics, complexity economics, and cultural anthropology.
Strategic Doing is built around Four Questions that design collaborative conversations: What could we do? (identifying opportunities using existing assets); What should we do? (selecting the right opportunity and defining success); What will we do? (defining small, short-term projects to test ideas); and What's our 30/30? (setting regular check-ins to learn and adjust). Unlike traditional strategic planning that happens at long intervals, Strategic Doing treats strategy as emergent through continuous iteration, building trust and designing next steps through repeated cycles of these questions.
The four questions provide a template for designing collaborative conversations. One practitioner keeps a map of the Strategic Doing cycle on her office door to ensure phone calls remain strategic. Scott applied it with his teenage son, asking "What would it look like if your room was clean almost all of the time?"-creating a measurable outcome they could work toward together. Ed used the framework during a two-hour meeting in Germany with Fraunhofer IAO researchers, mentally organizing the conversation around the four questions, which led to a strategic action plan identifying twelve opportunities and establishing an ongoing partnership.
Strategic Doing can serve as an "operating system" for organizational or ecosystem transformation. In Rockford, Illinois, civic leaders used Strategic Doing to address an engineering talent shortage, creating a community-based solution where students could earn engineering degrees locally with paid internships. Industry partners raised $6 million in nine months to support the program. On Florida's Space Coast in 2011, when the space shuttle program was ending, Strategic Doing helped civic leaders break through a two-year planning paralysis. Within hours, they identified renewable energy as an opportunity and defined a project that eventually grew into a new cluster of clean energy companies.
Despite tremendous challenges facing our world and political paralysis, there are people in every community ready to roll up their sleeves and work together-they just need new ideas about how to have conversations that lead to real change. The ten skills in this book provide those ideas, offering a pathway to meaningful collaboration in our complex, networked world.
