Replying to LO24831 --
Hello Jim,
You asked:
...snip...
> The standard answer I get from senior management is that engagement to
> that degree would be too messy...large groups of people rarely would
> accomplish anything. But, then, how does the company reconcile its
> position with the legitimate points above? There seems to be a huge
> disconnect here.
>
> Has anyone any thoughts on this? Are there examples that you can site
> where these issues have been addressed?
We - mind@work, just the two of us - developed our tool for these issues.
Involving large groups is messy but can be done and, when done in a
carefully constructed way, can accomplish great results. There are two
basic approach:
Top-down, using the cycle:
3. problem identification (the issue as seen on this level) --> solutions
definition (what can we do, what must others do, what priorities) -->
implementation plan with boundaries for next level at every level -->
coordinating mechanisms for reporting; nd using the line managers as the
linking pin. This will take a few weeks for every level.
2. The complete organisation -usually a product/market combination - :
same circle and identifying the low level actions in the afternoon.
We've developed a computerized tool, mind@teamwork,- to be used in both
situations - to brainstorm all together on a number of questions (for
instance: "what problems do we have?", "what solutions do you have for ...
", "what objections do you have to solutions") at the same time - somewhat
like this LO-list, but in one session - AND printing the ideas on cards to
be clustered by the participants. After a discussion, we do a vote and let
the participtants make action programms on the most important issues.
We've done it several times, with large groups and the energies can be
contained and be made productive. Also, the reports are available the next
day. Drawbacks?
1. The management has to decide here and now on the various proposals
2. The solutions can be very counter-intuitive, creative, surprising,
specially when you also involve customers and or suppliers (for instance:
clear the cellars and sell all the items there; skip procedures and let
customers talk to the floor directly; create an internet site for faster
internal interaction; one central telephone (0800) number for all questions
and complaints AND do not switch to another person)
3. It defies "classical" leadership styles and ideas like: the manager is
fully in control, has "supervision" and is fully accountable for the results.
4. It somehow seems to create a feeling with the responsible management that
management did it wrong in the past
What is required is a management that understands that
1. facts are concrete and the same for everybody and that feelings are also
concrete but differ from person to person. Feelings however, should be treated
as facts - not denied or hidden - and used to learn.
2. a plan - ordering time, money, actions and resouces - is as abstract as any
other idea or thought to communicate and is there with one purpose: to be
changed.
To summarize: you see what you want to see (also known as: what you see is
what you get) and you hear what you want to hear. The question then is:
who sees what you see? who hears what you hear? And what is the point of
seeing and hearing?
OOPS, this is not a summarization, but an opinion. Summary: controlling
decision making by large groups is feasable.
Kind regards,
Jan Lelie
-- Drs J.C. Lelie CPIM (Jan) LOGISENS - Sparring Partner in Logistical Development mind@work - est. 1998 - Group Decision Process Support Tel.: (+ 31) (0)70 3243475 or car: (+ 31)(0)65 4685114 http://www.mindatwork.nl and/or taoSystems: + 31 (0)30 6377973 - mindatwork@taoNet.nlLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.