>In LO4812, I wrote:
>>>....I sometimes get a response out of a manager who says that it
>>>is the job of management to do these things. Is it possible that
>>>part of the "how" in management's job is to engage the workforce
>>>ang get them to actively participate in building the kind of
>>>environment we all want, and to be involved in the developement
>>>of processes we will all use?
>
In LO4885 Diane wrote:
>In LO4868, Julie responds:
>
>>It may have been effective at one time for this type of role for
>>managers however, it seems to me, that in times of rapid change,
>>large organisations and multiple processes it is no longer
>>possible to manager to fulfill this role. [snip]
>
>Julie,
>
>I agree with all of the responses you made in reply to my original
>message, including this last paragraph, at least in part. I have recently
>gone through an experience that may help clarify the level of
>participation we can use to balance the two extremes of no involvement
>(authoritarian rule) and too much involvement (democracy?). Both can be
>equally crippling, in my opinion.
Mmmmmm.... isn't the notion of polarity fascinating...
Here is what my experience has been:
We start from model A - an authoritarian approach we has the manager as
the one who knows what is best... setting strategy, defining vision and
telling the work force what to do sometimes to a frightening level of
tactical detail... and yet we know somehow that this is hard work and we
resent how much we need to do (why do these people ask me if they should
open up shop... don't they know it is 9.00 o'clock!!)
Then we try another model - Model B in which we 'empower' our
people - setting them free and liberating their creative potential
- we involve them (possibly even getting someone to train them in
problem solving techniques) and then we wait to see what happens
(suspecting[?hoping??] it will all end in doom. Soon we find they
have either made 'unreasonable decisions' which we cannot go along
with - or they have decided they are running the show and we have
to do what they tell us - 'well you empowered us' So it ends in
failure and we go back to....
Model A ... this time feeling guilty because somehow we know it is
not right.... and something else comes along which we can get
people involved in.....and so we try again with...
Model B and we ocillate uncomfortably between the two
It seems to me that there is an alternative option... Model C which
sees the whole thing as a collaborative partnership each party (slice
of the heirarchy) having a different set of strategic information
which needs to be taken account of... which means dialogue and
understanding and common strategic database of information which will
allow for decisions by either party (when based on the information)
to make sense to all concerned.
Participation thus ensures that it is not abdication... there is
learning for all to do ... we must beware blaming the senior
managers as mcuh as blaming the workers....
>When my managment decided they wanted to implement a new process, they
>formed a team of 5 to work on the project full-time. These were internal
>to the company, but external to the organization. These people created
>three user groups: 1)Middle managers who would use the process;
>2)Supervisors who would use the process; 3) Designers who would use the
>process. All three levels would use different aspects of it. There
>were 5 in each user group. For about 10 weeks, while the process
>was under intense developement, each group would spend time
>separately with the five full time team members.
What was the thinking around working the groups seperately? Did
you consider having them all work together? It might have given
some insight as to the interactions and dynamics of the whole
system?
>We were also
>encouraged to come forward and share thoughts and ideas throughout
>the process, even when there were no meetings. These five people,
>I believe, did an excellent job in "facilitating" the project. I
>spent between 2 and 4 hours per week with my involvement, as did
>others. At first, I was not happy with the thought that we were
>not included as "full-time" for the 10 weeks. No that it is
>completed, I think that this would have been a waste of time and
would have hindered the process.
Could you say some more about the specifics of how working
full-time on this would have hindered the process?
>All of the users were
>encouraged to share with others what we were doing and to get
>feedback. I also provided feedback that enabled these original 5
>team members to enhance their roll-out training in such a way, as
>to aid community buy-in.
How did you get community buy-in?
>Just before Christmas, one of the team members shared with me the feedback
>scores he was getting after having trained about 100 designers,
>supervisors and managers (total). On average, he was receiving an 85%
>approval rate, with some saying, "it's about time." Considering that the
>population was quite against the plan in the beginning I would say this is
>a worthy effort.
Which is great testimomy to the traning sessions, are they having
the impact you hoped for or is it too early to say?
> In all, there are
>1200 that will have to go through the process training, hopefully
>this number holds true throughout the roll-out.
How many are you rolling out at a time?
>The user groups will stay in place, periodically recruiting new members.
>The purpose: Continuous Improvement of the process. My pitch to others
>has been, "let's not suppress feedback, let's come up with a system that
>encourages feedback -- solicitation, if you will." The user group can use
>such feedback as one of the ways to improve the process, allowing the
>community to feel they are involved in that improvement.
Are you finding the the people who were invloved in this feedback
process have a high ownership of the product and how is that
manifesting itself? Are they continuing to use their
understanding of the process to continuously improve it .. as their
involvement develops is the nature of the feedback and the
questions they raise changing ... ie moving into double loop
reflections on why things happen that way and their own
contribution to the way things are?
>For managers to make use of such user groups, would be well to their
>advantage when developing and implementing new processes that will have to
>be used by others. Herein lies the ability to create a quality process
>that will enable most to buy-in to.
We always use this type of concept in designing by putting together
a group which is representatvie of our likely participants from
every perspective - the interactions of the cynics and the
champions always produces something we have great confidence in as
we proceed with delivery and implementation...
Thank you for the mailing - very thought provoking and
inspirational...
Regards Julie
-- Julie Beedon <julie@vistabee.win-uk.net>