>What the 2:6:2 model suggests to me is that for any initiative, the most
>constructive way of focusing management effort is to support those who
>positively support the initiative, allow those who are not immediately
>enthusiastic to be drawn in to something that is happening, and not to
>directly focus on persuading those who are against the initiative to
>commit to it.
I can see that this approach might have some value - certainly for a short
term initiative and to get something moving quickly. I can also see some
potential consequences in the long term which might be less desirable.
Personally I am inclined to move more towards the notion of 'embracing the
resistance' which comes out of some counter-intuitive notion that many of
our strategies to avoid or deal with it end up increasing opposition. Also
I am not assuming that this would mean directly focusing on those who are
against it, merely actively including them in the process.
>This is based on the fact that resources are finite and
>management has to make some decision on how to spend a finite amount of
>time.
In what way is it a 'fact' that resources are finite - I might think of it
as more of a mental model than a fact - or at least if I did, it might
open up more options to me.
>Now the anti's may have very good reasons for not wanting to be part of an
>initiative, but if the organisation has chosen a basic path to go down,
>the honest thing for anyone who fundamentally disagrees with that path to
>do is to join a different organisation, although they may content
>themselves with operating on the margins of the organisation and create
>paths which the organisation may choose in the future.
What assumptions are you making about
* the reasons why someone might fundamentally disagree with a
chosen path
* the extent to which the 'organisation' has chosen the path or a
group of people with a certain set of strategic information have
selected it
My sense is, that if particular views are systematically excluded
from the equation then, the path may have some important strategic
information missing
The other thing I am struggling with here is that the only way the 'right
to disagree' seems to be able to be excercised in this model of
organisations is in leaving which somehow sounds very coercive. That may
not have been your intention but I could read it that way.
>The point about diversity is that there is not one true path for the
>organisation to find and follow, but the organisation has to chose a path
>or set of paths at any moment in time. There will always be a significant
>minority who do not want to take those paths, for whatever reason.
This still does not explain for me why organisations can only tolerate so
much diversity.. what are the factors which you think influence an
organisations ability to tolerate diversity and what do you see as the
downsides of increased diversity. We may be at a value point here because
I value diversity very highly - somehow in the space between the
polarities lies the energy of our potential difference.... Perhaps it is
a question of how organisations choose their paths or sets of paths but
losing 20% at every strategic change point seems strange to me.
I cannot comment on the story from your life .....
>Another common example would be the conflict between partners in a new
>business which has the opportunity to grow rapidly. Some may want to go
>for that growth, others may want to stay small. If the company is to have
>a direction it has to do one or the other, so some partners may choose to
>leave.
... and yet time could be spent exploring how they could grow *and* stay
small. These things need not be black and white either/or there is huge
possibility in synthesis which is only there with diversity....
>Another example, closer to the interests of some other people onthis
>list, may be of a company deciding to go down the ISO 9000 route. Some
>people may honestly find this bureaucratic and stifling, and choose to
>operate on the margins, or leave. Again, I don't want to open up a debate
>on this, just to acknowledge the diversity of opinion which exists.
This example helped me more than some of the others to understand where
you are coming from - I sense that you are talking about diversity of
answer/method which I wonder if there would be less of an issue about if
people explored common ground in terms of desired outcomes (even values)
>I suppose I could be advocating the primacy of Personal Mastery over
>Shared Vision - not everyone can buy into the shared vision (and not
>everyone can be directly involved in creating it), so if you can't buy in
>to the shared vision, being true to your sense of personal mastery is an
>option.
My first and immediate reaction here is that everyone can be involved in
creating it (an Oil Company I am working with in New Orleans put 1000
people into the Louisiana Superdome last year to do just that sort of
thing and continue to put a lot of energy into inclusion and listening to
those with diverse views) Then I had a think about personal mastery and my
assumptions about what it means to me - one important aspect would be that
we do not let go of our vision even if it seems impossible - leaving
sounds a bit like letting go but I suppose it depends on the
circumstances. My sense of leaders with personal mastery is that they
accept and generate creative tension and they dialogue with everyone about
the vision to draw people out to create their own. Personal mastery means
understanding current reality and these 20% are an integral part of it, it
means treating emotions respectfully including peoples resistance, and
setting aside the notions that people are motivated by money, recognition
and fear.... and it means a loyalty to the truth which means that the
barriers to telling it needs to be removed .. So I cannot see it as making
a choice for personal mastery over shared vision because there is no
choice to be made - these two disciplines are inextricably linked to each
other....
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/>