We often assume that once we get everyone in a room and reach agreement on an architecture, the hard part is over. But what happens when the workshop goes perfectly, everyone nods along, puts their sticky note on "Yes, I support this," and then four weeks later... nobody has shipped anything?

That's the pattern Xin Yao encountered twice in her career—separated by seven years and what should have been much better facilitation techniques the second time around. In her first story, Xin orchestrated a multi-day integration architecture workshop for a major financial institution. Cross-functional teams aligned on APIs, event-driven patterns, and walked away with a clear action list. Four weeks later, an engineering manager asked the question nobody wanted to hear: "Did you notice anybody was excited about it?" The answer was no. The work? Also no.

Seven years later, armed with Event Storming and collaborative modeling techniques, Xin tried again. This time it was a DDD workshop during COVID, with real-time collaboration and all the right practices. But the timeline wouldn't merge, participants couldn't walk through the model without Xin taking over, and the board ended up more red (hotspots and conflicts) than orange (domain events). In the retrospective, someone said: "The whiteboard doesn't compile." Another admitted: "We didn't want to ruin it for you—you had so much passion."

This conversation explores the gap between facilitation techniques and the emotional safety required to make them work. We dig into why "success theater" happens, how to invite dissent from the very beginning, and why architects need to remember they're "feeling machines that think"—not thinking machines that feel.

Key Discussion Points

* [00:01] The Flying Squad: Xin's role as an integration architect parachuting into a multi-day workshop for a major CRM integration project

* [06:00] Agreement Without Excitement: Four weeks after a "successful" workshop, the action list sits untouched—nobody shipped

* [08:00] The Event Storming That Wouldn't Merge: Seven years later with better techniques, but the timeline clusters, the facilitator becomes the bottleneck, and the board turns red

* [12:00] "The Whiteboard Doesn't Compile": Why participants stayed silent when the entry and exit events were wrong from the start

* [16:00] Taking the Authority Out: How Xin learned to say "I'm a couple steps ahead, not the expert—trust your own experience"

* [21:00] Inviting Dissent Early: The heuristic of pausing every 10 minutes to ask "What would you say if you didn't have to be polite?"

* [36:00] Connection Before Content: Why breaking into small groups of three creates the safety to surface real concerns

* [38:00] Feeling Machines That Think: The role of emotion in architectural decision-making and why facilitators need to invite emotional language into the room

**Guest:** Xin Yao

**Hosts:** Andrew Harmel-Law, Kenny Schwegler, Andrea Magnorsky

*Part of the Stories on Facilitating Software Architecture and Design series from Virtual DDD.*

Andrew Harmel-Law: Hello and welcome

to another episode of facilitating

2

software design and architecture.

3

And this time we've got Shin with

us, who's I'm sure got a super

4

exciting story to share with us.

5

And I'm Andrew Harma Law, and

I'm here with my co-conspirators,

6

Andrea Mag Norski and Kenny Bosch.

7

Regular.

8

Over to you, shouldn.

9

Xin Yao: Thank you.

10

Thank you for inviting me.

11

To, uh, uh, this, first

12

I'm, uh, excited.

13

so today I think I'm

just, uh, I'm gonna tell.

14

Mm.

15

Two stories related about

architecture enabling.

16

I'm gonna tell them short and

sweet and then I look forward to,

17

having a conversation about it with

you rather than, you know, just,

18

giving you my learning points.

19

So, I hope it's gonna

be, fun for you as well.

20

Um, right.

21

So, um.

22

as long as I can remember, I

have been this kind of a fixer.

23

Everybody knows me as a person

that can fix things, especially

24

complex architecture stuff.

25

So I've been, um, in this,

boundary spending role for, maybe.

26

15 years at least.

27

The first story I'm gonna tell is, at

that time there was no enabling architect.

28

The road didn't exist.

29

So, uh, I've got, you know, I've been

part of, something called a flying squad.

30

So flying squad is kind of like,

if you're, you have a fire,

31

then you fly people in from the

flying squad to put out the fire.

32

And, in this case I was the integration

architect, um, uh, from the flying squad.

33

And the thing is that I was working

for this big financial institution

34

and, also at that time there was no.

35

Um, legacy modern modernization.

36

So the background is that, uh,

the, uh, um, this institution,

37

this bank has decided to, buy a

new CRM system to replace, um, um.

38

Actually as a new system to enable some of

new processes for their business banking

39

and corporate and institution customers.

40

And because there was no knowledge sharing

at that time, at, uh, at that point.

41

And, and, uh, you see all these

account managers, they put their

42

knowledge literally in shoe boxes.

43

There is no knowledge sharing.

44

So because of this thing, they're

only using the system for corporate

45

banking and business banking.

46

There's a.

47

Whole private sector that

is not moving to the system.

48

The complexity is kind of.

49

and people need to find out a way

to basically, design a integration

50

architecture that can make this, make

this work, make the business process work.

51

So my job back then was to summon

all the teams that are going to be

52

involved in supporting this integration

project, into a multi-day workshop.

53

Fashion.

54

It's kind of.

55

Offsite and really dedicated.

56

and so it's kind of like all the

core banking systems because for

57

the data to go into the new CRM

system, you need the credit data.

58

You need the customer data.

59

You need the account.

60

You need to the, the 360

view for every customer.

61

And sometimes if you are a small business

customer, you are also a private.

62

Customer, personal customer.

63

So there is kind of this complex

business complexity as well.

64

So the business people have

to be involved as well.

65

So it's kind of a cross-functional

and a lot of teams.

66

And the a kind of like a

prestige kind of gathering.

67

So my role is actually to

facilitate kind of a decision,

68

toward the target architecture,

target integration, architecture.

69

Both from the business process perspective

and the data integration perspective and.

70

went very well.

71

I did my data gathering.

72

did a lot of focus, group interviews

upfront and, in the workshop there

73

were dedicated knowledge sharing

from different teams for the

74

hotspot areas for people to get a.

75

fair understanding.

76

And we basically drew up, a sort

of a big service blueprint from,

77

above, the visibility line, all the

way down to the data integration.

78

It all went very well from my perspective.

79

And people were very much playing

along and, and, and then so forth.

80

And so we had, the, discussion about,

you know, we don't want this new

81

project, this new initiative to become a.

82

Opportunity

83

to add into more, even more integration

points, because then, you know, there are

84

a lot of custom integration solutions.

85

We call them, system integrators.

86

We want to do APIs and we

want to reuse and all that.

87

So all the event driven, all

the API enablement was also

88

part of that initiative.

89

We, we, we.

90

These are the principles and so forth.

91

So we had a, we had a

integration architecture

92

lined out, in different areas.

93

And then we had the, at that time

it was, it was a beginning of

94

the, I think the A GR was micro

95

And that was two

96

Andrew Harmel-Law: Yeah.

97

Ruth Malan

98

Xin Yao: Yeah.

99

Andrew Harmel-Law: corrected

my book 'cause I said he

100

invented it and Ruth said, no.

101

Someone in the

102

Xin Yao: oh, okay.

103

Andrew Harmel-Law: wrote a blog

104

Xin Yao: I had the same, I had the same

105

I remember it because that's

the year when my son was born.

106

we tried to use it and people were quite

impressed about that process and so forth.

107

Then I, that, that we ended those three

days with a long action list because a

108

lot of people need to do a lot of things,

and balancing priorities and so forth.

109

So the team leads all

went back and so forth.

110

So that seems to be a story with

no, you know, twists and turns.

111

But the feedback came

maybe four weeks later.

112

And, because I wasn't part of

any of these teams, I was the,

113

remember I was the flying squad.

114

So when the managers got together

in a looking back meeting there was

115

just, we found out, yeah, we aligned.

116

Everybody agreed.

117

And we even did the, uh, you know, I

remember we drew a line, on one side.

118

It's, yes, and I support this.

119

I'm totally on board.

120

On the other is, yes, but, and

then most of the people put their.

121

On the Yes.

122

End.

123

And so, so, so it was, we all aligned.

124

Four weeks later, we

found out nobody did it.

125

The action list was basically like,

yeah, what ha, what's happening?

126

What's happening?

127

I couldn't understand because

I put in a lot of hard work.

128

I was the one key facilitator

and, and, and so forth.

129

And then there was this

one annoying manager.

130

he's an engineering manager and he was

just like, Hey, I think everybody agreed.

131

Everybody was supportive, but did you

notice anybody was excited about it?

132

She was like, no, there was no excitement.

133

There was, there was no excitement.

134

Everybody was playing the game.

135

Nobody wanted to say micro, so,

so not microservice back then.

136

It's API is bad.

137

Nobody wanted to say in is bad.

138

Nobody wanted to say, I don't

want to be part of this and.

139

It was a top down orchestrated show.

140

it's a success theater and, for me.

141

So, so that was my personal

learning point at that time.

142

Very simplistic.

143

So that was story one.

144

And then, you know, we also did

a lot of domain modeling because

145

I was also all jazz about DDD.

146

That's, that was the year when.

147

Vernon's book came out, at

least that was the year when I

148

read it, I was just like, okay.

149

All, all jazz about that as well.

150

Then the year, the, the, the, the

following years was in the sign of

151

event storming a collaborative modeling,

so I was just like convinced that

152

if we did collaborative modeling,

we, that would be a game changer.

153

Those workshops would have

become a total success.

154

fast forward seven years later,

just in the middle of COVID.

155

I did, a similar exercise.

156

I was no longer part of the flying squad.

157

I was the DDD evangelist, another enabling

role in an events dorming workshop

158

for a cherry picked core domain in a

transformation project for the same

159

organization So it was collaborative

modeling everybody was contributing.

160

There was not so much contribution

in the first workshop.

161

It was all pre, orchestrated and this time

it's all real time and so forth, right?

162

And, and, and people put on the

sticky note, but then when we were

163

supposed to merge the timeline.

164

I break loose, because I, um, I, I, I

basically, I was just like, they were,

165

the energy was so high when people wrote

all those, sticky notes after merging

166

the timeline, which is like, I still,

I still saw those clusters, like people

167

didn't want to merge their timeline.

168

And so, so after a lot of persuading

out of, a lot of convincing, um,

169

I was just like saying, oh, okay,

we didn't have to do it perfect.

170

and this is an experiment.

171

It's reiterative.

172

let's just do this.

173

So we got kind of a.

174

Timeline merged.

175

Hallelujah.

176

That was half a day the time

we were totally, you know,

177

exceeding the timeframe.

178

I was a allocating for, usually

merging the timeline wasn't hard,

179

you know, people were just, having

a little discussion and so forth.

180

But then in the afternoon after lunch,

the brain was already a little used.

181

and then we were supposed to do

the explicit walkthrough and then

182

in the best collaborative modeling

fashion, I did an example and then

183

I encouraged people to take over.

184

the people who took over had a hard

time, harmonizing the different inputs,

185

and there were a lot of questions, a

lot of really polite, but really a lot

186

of questions they couldn't continue.

187

So at one point, one person said to me, S.

188

We had nobody had, your skills.

189

You have to take over

if we want to proceed.

190

in fact, the architect of the team

said that, so I had to, uh, uh, took

191

over and they, in the end, uh, we

ended up with more hotspots than, the

192

orange, sticky notes, literally, if

you look at the board, the picture.

193

It was more red than orange.

194

Um, because that was kind of like, okay,

we, uh, Alberto has this rush to the go.

195

You need to see the forest

before you can see the trees.

196

So we just keep encouraging people

to say, let's, let's, for whatever,

197

um, um, uh, effort that it, it needs,

let's, let's construct the forest.

198

And then at the end of the day,

we couldn't do the value thing.

199

In the end, there was no time.

200

And I could feel there was something

missing, but I didn't want to go

201

there because it's supposed to work.

202

all other event storming sessions work.

203

Why couldn't this one work?

204

I the next point, because

we had a big DDD roadmap.

205

The next point is the DDD,

boundary context canvas.

206

I had no boundary context candidates

and I was very, very much sy about it.

207

the day ended really not well.

208

And those, that's the second story.

209

And it ended by a retrospective, when

I was actually asking people to in the

210

day afterwards, to do a retrospective.

211

And people were actually

very frank with me.

212

one person.

213

I remember this, this one per, there

were two, there were several comments.

214

One is, we only see trees, no forests.

215

'cause that was my mantra.

216

The other person, another person said.

217

the whiteboard doesn't compile because

my passion about event storming is

218

that at the end of the day, you almost

have a whiteboard that compiles, right?

219

You have this cadence

220

Andrew Harmel-Law: Hmm.

221

Xin Yao: he was like

saying it doesn't compile.

222

Then I had an individual

conversation afterwards with these

223

two people and I found out it's

one of the reason is because.

224

the precondition for this whole event

storming was the entry and exit event

225

was decided by the domain architects

and they didn't really agree.

226

The team didn't really agree with

the entry and exit architect, event.

227

And the architect was in the

meeting, was in the workshop.

228

So nobody wanted to go there.

229

A lot of questions and so forth.

230

And it was again, um, this, this thing.

231

And, uh, I'm just like,

it is so easy to have.

232

Why didn't nobody?

233

Tell me.

234

Right.

235

And then, I asked the second person,

who took, well, there was a third

236

one saying that girl said you sing,

you are too in love with your model.

237

I said, why didn't anybody say anything?

238

Because at that time, I

already got this information.

239

She said, you know, we all respected you.

240

You had so much passion,

you had so much, energy.

241

We didn't want to ruin it for you.

242

And we, we, we, we, we wanted to,

we wanted also to make it work.

243

that was what I got.

244

That was the second story.

245

there was a, you know, longer ending

to the story, but I wanted to stop

246

here and think it's already been long.

247

there's a lot of learning, but

I want to invite you to tell me

248

what is your immediate reaction?

249

What are your thinking there?

250

There's not, um, there's a way

more data than I was having time to

251

share, but you had some impressions.

252

So tell me.

253

Andrew Harmel-Law: One that strikes me.

254

'cause I've this is like,

255

and I think you almost

exactly said this shit, right?

256

Sometimes you need to do a big

thing and then you put a lot

257

of effort into the big thing.

258

And then everyone comes to the big thing.

259

because it's a big thing and

everyone knows it's important,

260

everybody's terrified to say

maybe the big thing isn't working.

261

'cause I feel that all the time.

262

It's, it's terrifying.

263

Um, yeah.

264

That's, do you think there's, from lessons

that you've learned, do you think there's

265

any ways to like, 'cause I've seen Alberto

Alberto, like when he's done it with me,

266

he talks about playing event storming.

267

So he is trying to like reduce the.

268

We're just gonna have fun.

269

It doesn't matter if it succeed

or not, which I, for a long

270

Xin Yao: Mm

271

Andrew Harmel-Law: realize

how important that was.

272

Xin Yao: mm.

273

Andrew Harmel-Law: of, any

lessons learned or things that

274

you've realized maybe would help

275

Xin Yao: Yeah.

276

Andrew Harmel-Law: if you were

277

Xin Yao: So, um, I can totally, yeah.

278

Uh, that's, that's, that's

really a lot of resonating there.

279

and I think that since 2020 I'm

still on my own leading edge of

280

understanding and, growing from all this.

281

there's, there's, a couple of things.

282

one is that.

283

These days.

284

So the fun part is really, an element.

285

But if you look behind the fun that

is, I think that is kind of like

286

to say in the beginning instead of

to say, I'm the enabling architect.

287

I'm here to tell you what

the right way to do this is.

288

these days I tend to say.

289

know, I'm here to share some something,

some stuff, some shit I know.

290

But, I am on the same learning journey.

291

I'm probably just a couple

of steps ahead of you.

292

I'm not there, so I don't want you to.

293

Trust me for any of this, I want to

you to trust your own experience, so,

294

but the next whatever, how many days

I want you to, to have an open mind

295

for what I'm telling you, give it

a fair chance, but whether it works

296

or whether it's not, it's up to you.

297

So it's kind of like taking

the authority, taking the.

298

I am here to fix you thing a

little bit out of the picture.

299

That's one thing that,

that, that, that has worked.

300

The other thing is inviting

dissent from the very beginning.

301

Basically, I have a heuristic for my side.

302

If I have shown people maybe four or

five slides of something or tell, have

303

I've used at least 10 minutes to tell

something, I have to pause and I have to

304

say, what are your doubts and concerns?

305

if you didn't have to be

polite, what would you say?

306

any of this that is, and

this stuff is totally useless

307

from a current point of view.

308

And if you're feeling the need to scroll

on your phone and if you're disengaging.

309

So, so it's kind of like.

310

That, um, also to basically

invite, you know, get to get that

311

data that those, that entry and

exit events really didn't work.

312

We could have saved a lot of time.

313

So those are the two things

that popped into my mind.

314

Yeah.

315

Andrea Magnorsky: There is a common

thread in the two stories, which is kind

316

of what I think you're, you are saying,

Hey, I'm going to give you two stories.

317

What do you say?

318

And what I'm, what I'm sensing here

is that you are trying to learn about.

319

to present yourself at the same time with,

with the, in a way that kind of, you're,

320

you're basically, you know, stuff, right?

321

And, and you're trying to

facilitate, and facilitation is

322

about enabling collaboration, right?

323

So, so you're trying to do that.

324

Bring your technical knowhow, your

social system, building knowhow to

325

this facilitative, both of those,

exercises, but how to do that and

326

still kind of able to be excited

yourself and at the same time.

327

get the feedback from what is

happening in the room and from

328

people when it's not working.

329

Uh, and, and sometimes, for example,

when you were talking about, especially

330

in the storming one, I kind of was like,

okay, for me this, for my heuristics

331

for the board is more pink or red than

orange, is we don't have the knowledge

332

in the room or the setup is wrong.

333

and then you went like,

well, you know, this.

334

They just went along with the

setup and I was like, okay.

335

Uh, okay.

336

I, I was like, okay.

337

It's nice to see that we

ended up in a similar place.

338

But, I think a faci is hard.

339

It's an underrated skill.

340

It's extremely hard to learn unless

you're doing a lot, so it's like

341

you're, you're trying to, yeah.

342

Xin Yao: Yeah.

343

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

344

Xin Yao: This,

345

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

346

Xin Yao: yeah, and it, I, I think

it's true and, and sometimes we are

347

maybe as facilitators a little bit

too, over enthusiastic about the

348

technique, the methodology, event

storming, domain storytelling, the

349

format, and sometimes when there is

a really, I think we know if we are

350

really living in the moment, we sense.

351

There is a high stake, high

sensitivity topic that wants to get

352

out, but we don't go there sometimes.

353

Yeah.

354

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah, I want to talk

about that because your story reminds

355

me of, I've dealt with the same

situation and then I dived into deep

356

democracy, and they say, if you want to

go fast, first, you need to slow down.

357

It's also what hes now saying

with their decision making, right?

358

But first, you want to

go into the conflict.

359

looking back at the first

session as well, right?

360

In both sessions there

was a decision being made.

361

And that's always interesting, right?

362

Every time there's an autocratic

decision, resistance will start to pop up,

363

especially, well, there's a nuance to it.

364

If people agree with the decision,

it's fine, but you can bet in a big

365

group that not everyone's right, and

the first decision is like, we're

366

gonna do this to get to this point.

367

And the second one was like,

we are gonna use these events.

368

So these were already pre.

369

Disposed decisions being made and that

causes resistance to pop up, right?

370

Either people stay quiet or if, if you

think back at that moment, and it's always

371

very hard to reflect on this because

you basically usually don't see it.

372

If you didn't see it, then it's very hard

to reflect on it what happened, right?

373

But can you still think to a moment

back then where you think, oh.

374

Now I understand why this

behavior keep popping up, right?

375

did something notice you?

376

Like, ah, if I just dived into

this patterns that I'm seeing,

377

do you think that would help?

378

I'm very curious if you, if, if,

if there was something in your

379

mind like, yeah, now I understand.

380

Xin Yao: I think the, if you ask

me what did I notice and didn't

381

act on during the session, I think

what I noticed that is that my own

382

anxiety, so it's neurologically my own

anxiety of not producing the outcome.

383

I think the team deserved A part

of my identity as well, because I'm

384

there to enable, what am I to enable

if there's no not an outcome at all.

385

Right?

386

So that fear pre that, that

magdala in my brain basically

387

prevented my, my empathizing,

mechanism to take action on the.

388

You know, the, the undiscussable, the,

the thing, I have a very, I'm a, I'm

389

a, I think I'm a, I'm a female and I

have a very high sensitivity toward.

390

Things not going right.

391

I knew, I knew there's this thing,

but I didn't touch it because I

392

knew that I'm also, I have this

masculine part, I'm an architect.

393

I am supposed to be outcome driven.

394

I have the responsibility for this

and that, and for, for reaching

395

the timeline and all that.

396

So all these,

397

Kenny Schwegler: A.

398

Xin Yao: not, there's, there's

never, I think sometimes we tend to.

399

we have to be careful about

these heuristic and patterns.

400

Sometimes the moment we lock our mind

into one pattern or one heuristic to

401

say, this is what's going wrong and

this is what's going right, we are

402

excluding all the other things, and

all of us, all the four of us are.

403

All think we are system thinkers, right?

404

is a system?

405

It means more than one factor

is at play, even contradicting

406

things at the same time.

407

And so I think it's really important that

we don't let our own models trap us and

408

prisoners and keep us in the safety trap.

409

Kenny Schwegler: One thing I noticed.

410

So this is the biggest paradox for

architects starting to facilitate.

411

You say, I'm outcome driven,

so you're tied to the outcome.

412

While you said, I'm very empathic, the

group wanting something else while you

413

want to go to the outcome, that can be

a paradox that I think every architect.

414

Starts to facilitate,

gonna deal with that.

415

And that's a hard choice.

416

There's no right answer here.

417

There's, but, but I think

that's very important for, for

418

other architects to understand.

419

It says the moment you're gonna do

this there, you're gonna deal with this

420

paradox of, Hey, I have this outcome and

responsibility sake, but I notice that

421

the group needs something different.

422

How are we gonna deal with that?

423

I mean, so I, I just wanted to

say that before we go to Andrea.

424

Xin Yao: I just want to comment,

uh, on, briefly on that.

425

Uh, I think it's, with the dominance of

AI and with, with all these things, I

426

think the enabling architecture piece,

if somebody has the passion and the

427

sense of mission to enable others.

428

We have to go there, we

have to go and explore.

429

What is enabling.

430

Enabling is not to, you know, over

transfer skills, from me to you,

431

to anybody who doesn't know can

do that much better than we do.

432

What we enable is a capacity

to navigate complexity.

433

Otherwise Why, why us?

434

they can go somewhere else,

tutorials and whatever, right?

435

So that's just a short comment,

436

Andrea Magnorsky: I think that that's

a, that's a, very good comment.

437

and also wanted to ask you, when you're

talking about these two examples,

438

it seems to me that, you're asking,

what could I have done different?

439

I wanna ask you a different

question, which is.

440

if the outcome, what happens would've

happened no matter what you do, because

441

that's what the room needed to do.

442

Like, w what, like i, I, I think that

when you're facilitating something, there

443

are times when no matter what you do.

444

You can't give, let's say for example,

people, the capability to speak

445

about things, they don't feel safe

speaking because you're one person.

446

so what if the problem wasn't you and how

you facilitate it, but something else?

447

And in that case, what is the problem?

448

let's put a different

model in the question.

449

Xin Yao: Oh, wow.

450

That's, that's a, that's

such a good question, Andrea.

451

Thank you for that.

452

First of all, um, so I.

453

Question.

454

So that question was my initial,

uh, uh, my initial mind patterns.

455

Oh, what could I have done

differently these days?

456

I don't think like that anymore.

457

regret anything that happened

because it didn't happen.

458

I wouldn't have learned, and

a lot of people have taken

459

a lot of learning points.

460

I don't know other

people's learning journey.

461

So that's the first part.

462

sometimes, you know, even, um, um,

I, I'm working with my because right

463

now, you know, if you are leading

ar lead architect, you are always

464

in this role enabling architect.

465

You have this in you.

466

I'm, I'm special, I'm, I'm whatever.

467

and then that ness will somehow, It,

it's a very destructive capacity.

468

in some context.

469

second part about, the question is that,

what if whatever you would, you, you,

470

you did, it would still have happened.

471

Yeah, it could.

472

I mean, it's a complex world, but I think.

473

This is a question to all of us as

conveners of gatherings, as groups.

474

How do we, I think we have responsibility.

475

There is always something more we can

explore to how to, to me, a group.

476

group, a group with creative co-creative

dynamics is not a collection of people

477

individually contributing knowledge.

478

How do we tap into that potential is

the responsibility of the convener.

479

It is regarding if

you're architect or not.

480

I think there's always something

that I could have done to make

481

that convening role more effective.

482

my mental model right now,

there's three circles.

483

I have collaboration in the middle.

484

So if I want to make a group

collaboration work the best way

485

possible, I need three other Cs.

486

Connection, contribution and conversation.

487

if there's no connection, if there's

no trust built from the very beginning,

488

anything you say or do, doesn't matter.

489

Doesn't matter at all.

490

The connection is not only between

the people, but also between the

491

people to the purpose of that

gathering and the connection from

492

the person to him or herself.

493

what can we do so that people can just

share a little bit more of their truth?

494

Right.

495

Uh, without feeling that

it's, it's damaging for them.

496

There's always something more we can do.

497

That's the connection bit.

498

The contribution is what's missing.

499

Because if people don't contribute,

they will give you lip service.

500

Like in my first example.

501

And resistance is another piece.

502

What's the best way to

deal with resistance?

503

My humble opinion right

now is that contribution.

504

If you feel that there's

a person resisting.

505

I think Peter Block once said.

506

therapy, the moment you know you have a

breakthrough is when the patient says no.

507

if you can't say no, your yes

has no meaning, basically.

508

and, that's the power of contribution.

509

how do you do this Through conversations?

510

I think we have to be able to

model the conversation seriously

511

to make collaboration work.

512

So just briefly.

513

Kenny Schwegler: There's this Dutch

anthropologist, he says, resistance

514

is a very interesting metaphor.

515

It came from Freud.

516

Well, of course it comes from.

517

Electronics.

518

But Freud said, my patients, these are

patients who have psychotherapy, right?

519

there are usually people in therapy,

they're resisting my therapy.

520

That's where resistance came from and now

we're gonna use it as a word to describe

521

someone who doesn't agree with us.

522

And, we need to reframe that.

523

Resistance is not resistance,

it's just someone else's opinion.

524

Xin Yao: Yeah, it's, it's, it's

actually a creative energy.

525

You know, it's, I just

526

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

527

Xin Yao: I don't know who said it, someone

said, behind every complaint there is

528

a yearning, that I would rather have.

529

Complaint and loud spoken

resistance than lip service, right?

530

I would rather have the second

workshop than the first.

531

The collaborative modeling did

give me something after 37 years.

532

It wasn't the last game.

533

It triggered a lot of the things

that didn't happen in the first one.

534

So it's,

535

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

536

Xin Yao: The, the question is

how do we tap into that energy?

537

I think the first thing for us

as facilitators or conveners is.

538

not to in how to invite people

and not to in a persuading role.

539

the enabling word is

very dangerous in a way.

540

Because if I'm enabling DDD,

right, I'm telling people I know.

541

Maybe I don't know what the destination

is, but I know how you get there.

542

This is the way I'm enabling you to do.

543

Right?

544

and if you challenge

that, it's my identity.

545

you are challenging.

546

So how do we relax?

547

How, how do we be able to, you

know, how, how can we say, okay, I

548

don't care if it, is not the thing.

549

We don't do DDD, even

if I'm a DDD evangelist.

550

In fact, I want to say that the second

part that the trailer of that story

551

I didn't finish telling is that, I

continued DDD work with that team.

552

But in the two weeks that followed,

we dropped all methodologies.

553

we whiteboarded everything.

554

We freestyled everything.

555

And that worked wonder because that

brought me from the pedestal to

556

the same floor level as the team.

557

Let's not say, let's not use D,

d, D as intimidating, whatever.

558

Andrew Harmel-Law: That's, I think

the biggest problem of DDD, right?

559

Like it's, it feels like this gigantic

thing with all of these words and phrases

560

and history and things you need to know.

561

And to be honest, there's a tiny bit

at the center, which is important.

562

And like you said, that's

the thing that goes into

563

Xin Yao: Yeah.

564

Andrew Harmel-Law: else is just

fancy extra stuff on top of it.

565

But people get very, people

get very kind of, um.

566

by it or something, or push

back and resist against it or.

567

Andrea Magnorsky: one thing.

568

You, you said that, uh, in your, in

your opinion, the best way to deal

569

with resistance is contribution.

570

And I think.

571

That is extremely important

and also my experience of it.

572

so one thing that I find useful

for enabling contribution,

573

especially of the people.

574

'cause some people can be against you,

but also extremely white because that's

575

just not their style or whatever.

576

So it's always about trying

to find the ways to get people

577

showing some of the work.

578

aside, I generally don't.

579

When you somewhere new, I tend

to not talk about any of the tech

580

on, unless you're doing training.

581

and to say we're doing this, what is it?

582

you know, it's this sticky notes with

events, you know, just put another

583

one, you know, it's like an event.

584

And that's it.

585

That's the end.

586

Andrew Harmel-Law: I've done

some gorilla event storming,

587

did we just do event storming?

588

We did do eventing.

589

Andrea Magnorsky: Yeah,

590

Andrew Harmel-Law: the whole thing.

591

Andrea Magnorsky: but I think we

all know that here, but one of, one

592

of the things is finding the way to

get the contributions and To kind

593

of fill the room and meet the people

in the room wherever they're at.

594

And if that means that you need to,

go and do live, you know, like we

595

have whiteboards, boxes, and arrows.

596

Cool.

597

That's it.

598

That's where you're at.

599

and that's what works.

600

But, sometimes it can be something else.

601

So, think it's not said enough, that.

602

Resistance can be done with contribution,

and contribution can have a lot of shapes

603

Xin Yao: Yeah, totally.

604

Totally.

605

Hmm.

606

Kenny Schwegler: What I try to

do, learning from these Dutch

607

anthropologists, Daniella, they

wrote a book, corporate Tribe.

608

It's an interesting book.

609

It's an anthropology, and it

goes also into deep democracy.

610

and what they say is in

their check-in, they try to

611

challenge, the initial purpose.

612

I have the mantra of Dr.

613

House.

614

Everyone lies.

615

So when a manager or someone else comes

to me and says, this, this is what

616

the team really needs, I said, sure.

617

And the first thing I do in a

session is actually challenge that

618

who agrees and who doesn't agree.

619

So that's what you're

saying, I think zin, right?

620

Inviting the contribution.

621

The first thing I would do is,

even if it's a training, I say,

622

who wants to be at this training?

623

And who doesn't want

to be at this training?

624

And people are like, why?

625

Why?

626

You're asking that second question.

627

I say, well.

628

I might not want to be there because

I have a sick cat at home, right?

629

That's important.

630

Maybe because I don't know.

631

But then the train says, but what if

these people don't want to be here?

632

I say, we have a good conversation.

633

And afterwards that why you're inviting

people to a collaborative session or a

634

training and they don't want to learn.

635

I think you should.

636

First deal with that fact before

inviting me to give this training.

637

So, yeah, that's what I had the

same thing happening to me, zin.

638

And then what you're saying is

I started digging deeper and

639

that's the first thing I learned.

640

Ah, yeah, sure.

641

Of course.

642

I need to challenge the proposition of the

session before we actually do the session.

643

that was a learning, key,

644

Xin Yao: Hmm.

645

Kenny Schwegler: key insight for me.

646

Xin Yao: I think even, I have seen you

do it in your session, Kenny as well.

647

So, you made it feel

very safe to speak up.

648

and not in a lot of the settings.

649

People will not feel safe if,

there are 20 people with different

650

ranking and, whatever you say.

651

won't feel safe.

652

one way I've learned to do is to break

people into small groups, to do something

653

called connection before content.

654

Because in if If there is three,

uh, uh, people in a group, it's

655

way safer for people to speak up.

656

so that's, uh, that, that's, in a

sense when you ask people to share,

657

then it's also a little bit more

courage because they've already.

658

Talked about it once in a small group,

and then that's what creates connection.

659

Because when one person says, you know,

I have this hesitation and, whatever.

660

Indeed, like, oh wow, he spoke up.

661

I can too.

662

instead of, Andrea, you stood in

front of the room, you're the person

663

in front and you're asking who has

questions on who, who has concerns.

664

Yeah.

665

I don't want to say it.

666

I don't wanna say it.

667

Kenny Schwegler: Concerns.

668

I don't have concerns.

669

Whatcha talking about?

670

I'm an architect.

671

I don't have concerns.

672

Xin Yao: Yeah.

673

And I think one thing for me, maybe it's

easier for me to do as a female is to

674

invite the emotional language in the game.

675

said it too about a DRI think once

you know a talk about emotions,

676

there was one psychologist.

677

something.

678

He, he basically discovered that if

you take away the emotional center of

679

the brain, people can't make decisions.

680

they can still do chess, but they

can't decide what to have for

681

lunch, what to put on to go to work.

682

And so that, that emotion, so

when people are having these

683

things, what are you feeling?

684

What's what, what, me one word

to tell how you're feeling

685

about this workshop right now.

686

Let's, let's take a,

let's take a break, right?

687

Andrew Harmel-Law: had that

688

Xin Yao: And, yeah.

689

Andrew Harmel-Law: lots in my book about

690

Xin Yao: I.

691

Andrew Harmel-Law: of it because

people think like sation, right?

692

We think it's a very masculine,

factual, intellectual activity.

693

And fundamentally it's like guessing and

we're taking a jump and we're doing what

694

we think hope, what we hope is gonna work.

695

people don't do that,

696

Xin Yao: Yeah.

697

Yeah.

698

So we are, we're, until, uh, I

can't remember his last name.

699

He said that we are not machines having.

700

We are not, uh, thinking machines that

feel, we are feeling machines that think

701

it's very interesting to see it that way.

702

Andrew Harmel-Law: that's a

703

Xin Yao: yeah.

704

Andrew Harmel-Law: a great this episode

705

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

706

Andrew Harmel-Law: Kenny and Andrea.

707

Right.

708

That's fantastic.

709

Thanks Shin for everything.

710

That was super interesting and, thanks

711

Andrea Magnorsky: you.

712

Xin Yao: Thank

713

Andrew Harmel-Law: thanks, Kenny and.

714

Andrea, and hopefully

715

Xin Yao: you.

716

Andrew Harmel-Law: enjoys the listening to

all of the information and knowledge and

717

experience and wisdom that Shin shared.

718

Thank you everybody.

719

See you

720

Xin Yao: Thank you for having me.