Bob Williams wrote:
Today I told them the bad news. Unless those at the top of the
organisation find a way to deal with each other, and key issues, more
openly and honestly, then they will be unable to critically examine the
data, and any strategy developed will be a soft one. The response was
twofold. A sense of relief that the issue had been raised, and a sense of
uncertainty about what to do about it.
Bob,
I'm dancing in the dark here so don't know if this answers your needs...
Usually when something cannot be discussed, it involves personality and/or
behavior. Two things must happen: 1) Upper managment must be made aware
and agree upon the consequences of continuing to ignore the problem; 2)
Fear of dealing with the problem must be reduced to the point that action
can be taken.
You have probably already addressed 1 and it would be very helpful if the
director or chair made it clear that s/he expected some level of results
by a certain date, even if it is only a firm plan for how to proceed.
My suggestion for handling 2 is to get people to work on teams of 2 for
the purpose of dealing with those things that they think they can control,
focussing on the issues. They should mostly be allowed to select their
own partner so that they will feel less threatened. If there is an odd
person out, which I am almost certain there will be, that individual
should be assigned to work with the director or chair. The purpose is
twofold. First it will help that individual to focuss on the organization
as a whole instead of taking things personally. Second it will allow
someone in authority to experience firsthand whether this personality is
part of the problem and take steps accordingly.
Just my two cents.
-- Lucinda Lundin Management Analyst, NAWCWPNS lucinda-lundin@imdgw.chinalake.navy.mil