Malcolm said this some time ago ....
> The negative 20% tend in my experience to query the what and the
>why, and not be involved in developing the how.
I may not have expressed myself very well and my mention of what better
would look like may have thrown this off track... the essence of my
thinking is that we put the views of this 20% aside at our peril... partly
because if we do so we are acting on part rather than the whole of the
system and partly because the 60% may share some of their thinking even if
they are not directly influenced by them... so I am always very keen to
hear the assumptions and onderpinning objections behind what this 20% are
saying ....
>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.
It is less of a method for me and more of a mind-set so I would use this
approach with any group at any level
>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.
I suppose this is my underpinning assumption - possibly coming from
idealism and yet I wonder about the sort of community we might create if
20% are not involved at all. I don't think I am questioning their right
to disagree I am just curious to know more about what theri objections are
and how we might move forward with more of the system...
>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.
I am struggling with this tolerance to diversity point - could you say
more about what this means? I just have this sense that we could lose
really wonderful contributers because we never listened to them.... and in
the earlier post I seem to remember only 20% actually wanted to go in the
same direction (60% were indifferent?) as the 'rest of us'.
> 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.
and yet in some ways it could be seen as even more manipulative ... what
are the systemic effects of working with these people .. how does it
affect learning in the system and how people approach change and each
other? .... what is the effect on relationships?... things we saw some
interesting cycles in our system as a result of strategies like these....
it was less a question of a critical mass forming than of people learning
what were the politically correct things to support ... then of course
those who are in the 20% (with whatever motive) are viewed differently by
the rest of the system - I just have a sense that the long term systemic
effects of this strategy will be more damaging than effective ... but then
I am an idealist!!
Julie Beedon
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
julie@vistabee.win-uk.net
--Julie Beedon <julie@vistabee.win-uk.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>