JONESWALKERWILEY AT AGE 4: HOW WE’VE KEPT IT TOGETHER

We have now passed the fourth anniversary of this enterprise. We began this blog July 7, 2016, with our introductory posting, “We are JonesWalkerWiley, and Here’s Why You Should Care.” During the ensuing four years, we’ve offered over 150 posts on a wide range of topics. It’s been fun and we’re just getting started.

People ask us occasionally how we’ve held this together. Why haven’t three headstrong lawyers, each with opinions on anything and everything, broken apart and gone their separate ways?  Leaving aside the fact we were friends before we started this and plan on keeping things that way after we’re done, we have identified reasons we’re still going strong. These ideas might even apply in other life circumstances.

Maximize strengths; minimize weaknesses – Let’s face it. Most people aren’t good at

everything they do. In group endeavors, it’s important that members identify the areas in which they can make significant contributions and those where someone else may offer more. So it is with this project. One of us excels at ideas, another at challenging conventional wisdom. Yet another has a facility for getting things on paper, so we always have something from which we can work as posting time approaches. Two of us contribute most by commenting on drafts, not composing original work. Sticking with our strengths and avoiding what we’re not as good at produces a better product and reduces tension.

Learn about saliency - We all take pride in what we do. Pride of authorship, however,

can prevent improving a post if the person who drafted a segment or revised a piece clings irrationally to the notion they’ve found the holy grail on that topic. So, we each pick our battles, going to the mat over things we really, really care about (high saliency) and backing off on things that aren’t as important (low saliency).

Remain rhetorically sensitive - Rhetorical sensitivity defines a person’s susceptibility to persuasion. Though some people pride themselves on never changing their minds, each of us will hear out and consider the ideas of our collaborators. Often, we each start with a firm idea of how the world should work on something we’re writing about, but discover later someone else has a better approach. We see the capacity for that as a strength. 

Know when to hold ‘em; know when to fold ‘em – This line from the late Kenny Rogers’s hit song The Gambler offers great

advice for working in groups. Sometimes, your view won’t carry the day because you don’t have the cards.  When you realize that’s the case, give it up and fight another day. We write a new piece almost every week. It’s impossible any one of us will have the best idea every time, whether the issue is what we should write about, what we should say, or how we should say it.

Concurring and dissenting opinions are welcome, but not simply for the sake of disagreement – If you’ve followed us for any part of these four years, you know we seek consensus in our posts. We try speaking with one voice. Usually we do that, showing that

with enough care and compromise we can find common ground on the most difficult issues. We work hard at letting our readers know what we think and why and we avoid telling others what they should think. Admittedly, we have similar political ideologies, but within that broad framework, we have disagreements that require smoothing out if we are to speak with that one voice. We acknowledge, for example, that Rob, though decidedly progressive, harbors conservative instincts that bring him into conflict with Woodson’s more aggressive liberalism (Henry often ends up in the middle, with a slight tilt in Woodson’s direction on many, though not all, issues). Sometimes we can’t work out a compromise, so we write separately, with each person expressing his considered opinion. That’s useful from time to time, but we prefer reaching consensus if we can.

Critique work, not workers – No one can keep a project like this going for four years if the critiques become personal. Revisions of, additions to, and subtractions from text must represent comments on the work, not personal attacks on the intelligence, intellect, or skill of whoever produced the work. Groups in which that occurs fail quickly. Every

suggestion one of us makes for improving a post represents a considered judgment that such a change will give our readers a better product. When critiques become personal, we probably should each find something else to do.

We have not enjoyed a seamless journey, always adhering to all we proclaim here. At times we have violated our own mandates. We have, however, recognized our failures, admitted them, and reset our commitment to a friendship and a project. 

We write what we write here hoping it provokes thought and educates the public.

Though we’re part-timers at this, we want our voices in the marketplace of ideas. We’re grateful for the readers who follow us and provide feedback on what we write (keep those comments coming, folks). The pleasure is all ours.