Julie said:
>Here is my thinking - of the 60% which are uncommitted a significant
>number will share the same issues as the 20% who are negative (even
>if they have no influence or power). So in ignoring them I was
>missing important data about these issues and the systemic factors
>which informed them. Once I decided to *ensure* they were fully
>involved in planning and I learnt to listen to their issues and
>establish their ideas about what better would look like we were
>able to develop much more effective processes and strategies - not
>just for this 20% but for the 60% who were uncommitted.
I am not sure about this. It seems to presuppose we are starting from a
blank sheet (Julie's "what better would look like") and then creating the
strategy. More often we are working at another level in the deployment
process - ie the corporation has worked out what it wants to achieve and
why, and the group is tasked with how to achieve their contribution to
that. The negative 20% tend in my experience to query the what and the
why, and not be involved in developing the how.
Perhaps Julie's method works with a senior group who are looking at the
what and why, not a more practical group working out how they can support
the chosen strategy. This also assumes that we want to develop a process
which everyone can be commited to, but maybe life is such that this is
unachievable and that those who do not want to support the strategy have a
perfect right to disagree and not be involved, at their choice.
People have left our company because they simply did not want to go in the
same direction as the rest of us, and that's fine. We can only tolerate so
much diversity without fragmenting and harming ourselves.
Replying to LO7984
Carol said
>Today business is forced to make change in a very narrow
>timeframe, working only with the top 20% and dragging many of the rest
>"kicking and screaming". While this might be a bit of hyperbole, the
>question is, what are the best options for systemic change when you
>don't have adequate time to promote buy-in?
My problem with most management techniques or processes is that they are
inherently attempts to manipulate people, and hoever good they are, people
know they are being manipulated and resent it. Working with the 20% who
are positive to the changes you want to make decreases the need for
manipulative behaviour and makes the whole process much more open. The
uncommited don't need to be dragged kicking and screaming if the option of
joining in seems attractive and non-manipulative. This makes the
distinction between the what and the how even more important, because
groups can develop their own hows, as long as they know what the
organisation wants to achieve. This presupposes that the top of the
organisation can be comfortable with specifying a medium term outcome
without mandating the means. In essence the organisation may achieve it's
medium term goals, but in ways the executive team could not even begin to
imagine.
Carol's comment also reminded me of the cartoon of the manager banging his
fist on the desk and saying "What we need is a long term quick fix".
Rather than shorten the timeframe of 3 years for a major change initiative
(which I can't really relate to), can't we just work on rolling goals, in
terms of the WHATS, and let the HOWS evolve in practice.
In the spirit of inquiry.
Malcolm Jones
Productivity Europe Ltd
UK
prodeuro@atlas.co.uk
--prodeuro@atlas.co.uk (Malcolm Jones)
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>