Growing up in a family with three younger brothers, I always wanted to learn everything on my terms. I did not want my dad to tell me how to do it; I had to figure it out for myself. I learned from my mistakes and failures faster because I was my own worst critic. In fact, all four of us boys were that way. We did not want to be in the others’ shadow; each son was their own person. There was no allowance for unsolicited advice from anyone in that house. The belief that I had to figure everything out myself became a self-fulfilling prophecy, as once I learned something, I mastered it.
My stubbornness caused me to be slow to progress, compared to my classmates. I did not understand dating, sports, or the classroom because I believed I could only master a subject by learning on my own, without the help of others. Learning did not feel like an achievement to me unless I did all of the work myself.
In economics class, we learned that human specialization is what allowed the species to evolve exponentially. A village could break up the tasks of survival among the population: hunters, farmers, cooks, weapon & tool makers, etc. Why does this work? Instead of cooking for yourself, you can cook for a group of 12 while another person can gather food for those 12 at the same time someone else can protect the group of 12. Specialization allows your energies to be focused in a more detailed area than a general knowledge-based system.
In modern society, the most successful “specialists” are known for their ability to collaborate. Whether instilled during study groups, team projects, apprenticeships, military service, or other experiences, collaboration becomes an effective tool. Professionals often join organizations such as Rotary Club International, Toastmasters, Project Management Institute, and the American Medical Association to form a collective exploration of ideas in their fields. The organizations become a continuing education center for those who are trying to improve their businesses and professions.
When we think of track athletes and road race runners, we often think of an individual sport. The result of a race is on one person, but there are two times when collaboration takes place. First: during the running of miles in training. A person can run a five-mile workout at their pace. He/she can train like this five times in a week, but they will not get the peak performance that a team of runners training together would. During team training, the pace of the workout is pushed by one individual and the group maintains it until someone feels they can challenge the pace for a more effective workout. For example, an individual training alone may be running a 10-minute mile pace. However, when training with a group, they may be able to carry each other to a seven-minute mile pace. The second time collaboration takes place is during the race itself. “The pack” is where the favored racers gather at a common pace. When one of the competitors places a charge on the group, the pack responds because they know each other’s capabilities and stamina. That is why the competition times are much faster than the best day of training; the competition pushes everyone to rise to the best versions of themselves.
I learned an important lesson about collaboration during my time as a theater student, as I was directing my first production on a small stage. The dean of the theater department called me into her office to talk about her concerns for project. Since I had not had a formal class in stage directing, she wanted to provide me as many possible lessons as she could in one two-hour meeting. She mentioned that I should let the actors be part of the creative process but maintain control of the final product. I guess I discarded that advice at the time because I did not understand it fully. I will discuss this later in my “a-ha” moment.
The three talents I selected for the show had the demeanor and chemistry I was looking for during the audition process. I thought the show was going to be a success; the way the script was written, the audience would love it immediately! The first read through of the script with the actors had a few chuckles around the table. Then, the early rehearsals felt like we were sleep walking through the process. After feeling the talents’ frustration and not delivering like they did during the audition, I set up two rehearsals as a “free-for-all.” I gave them an early notification for the weekend so they could bring their ideas onto the stage.
Magic! The rehearsals went from a few chuckles to full-on laughter by the end of those two nights. The actors wanted to place their ideas into their characters; they wanted to express the feelings they believed their characters would have. By allowing them to be a part of the creative process, they had “buy-in;” they were no longer fixtures of the show like the props and the scenery.
After those two creative nights, I asked the lead actor, Sandy, to try some over-the-top characterization that would be considered embarrassing in a normal setting. She accepted the challenge and the rehearsal performance brought out more of the character that we were looking for. We did not use everything that came out of it though, because it went beyond the believability of the character. This is what the dean was talking about: the actors will have great insight of their character but do not let the creativity take away from the believability of the story you are trying to tell.
The show performed for three nights in “The Loft” at the university. Due to the buzz created from the open viewing of the dress rehearsals, the show filled every seat on all three evenings. The crowd was laughing throughout the entire performance.
The success of the show was a result of the collaborative efforts of the actors and me in telling this outrageous story. The show would have been a flop if it was done just my way. The actors would not have had the energy required for the characters, the audience would have been bored with the cheap one-liners, and I would have lost my enthusiasm to direct again.
I have learned the full effects of collaboration throughout my career. No one person has all the answers by themselves. If the four boys in my family would have been more open to collaboration, I can only imagine how much better we could have been. I think that through collaboration, we could have broken down artificial barriers earlier in our lives. The willingness to listen and to investigate the ideas with each other would have allowed us to pursue our dreams more effectively rather than fighting to remain out each other’s shadows.
Comments