Fostering involvement and buy-in – what the cat taught me
Often when I am making dinner, the cat would want to know what I am doing. If I ignore him, he usually gets more insistent and annoying.
So I simply show him or let him sniff at the carrots (or onions!) I am chopping up. He then knows what I am doing and loses interest. (Or if it is meat, he gets more excited and then I have to give him a bit, or give him his food.)
It is the same thing with business process work. People are curious by nature. Especially if they suspect what you are up to has impact on their work and lives. Fostering involvement and buy-in is as simple as letting everyone who is interested have a sniff.
You don’t have to give trade secrets away. You don’t have to respond to their reactions – unless they are the primary stakeholders. I don’t always give the cat what he wants, but if a dinner guest (primary stakeholder) says she is allergic to onions; that is a different matter.
Often the default approach in business process projects is to keep everything secret. The transparent approach is to make available everything (except the missile launch codes) to everyone who could conceivably be affected by the project.
Possibly Related Posts
7 comments on “Fostering involvement and buy-in – what the cat taught me”
Leave a Comment
Noticeboard
Buy my book - 30% off and free shipping within Australia; 15% off and free shipping worldwide!
Are you a solopreneur doing it on your own? Read my articles on Flying Solo.
Are you a small to medium-sized business leader or decision maker? Read my articles on Kochie’s Business Builders.
My evolving Squidoo lenses summarise the key themes and thinking behind my work.
Follow me on twitter.
Visitor locations: click for details.
My view is that information should only be in the hands of people who need to know. This is perfect for a few reasons.
1. Secrets remain secret. Yes there are things that should not be spread to certain people/groups until the time is right (if at all).
2. Avoidance of information overload.
3. Avoidance of confusion or unitended curiousity from the wrong parties.
I don’t agree with this whole transparency talk to be honest. If the wrong information is given to the wrong people, it could be lethal. Most companies make a (rightful) determination as to who should access what information based on role, and level within the organisational structure etc. I think they do a pretty good job…
How do you decide who needs to know? What are the intentions behind keeping secrets?
Most secrets are kept to protect empires and selfish interests. Neither of which contributes to the well being of a business or project outcomes.
Most secrets are kept out of fear. Because there is something to hide. Fear breeds fear and mistrust. It assumes that people are generally untrustworthy and unreasonable.
Sure, KFC publishing its 11 secret herbs and spices on the net is probably unwise. Consider, however, what could happen if employees have access to the recipe if they so wish. Their combined brainpower is thus available to contribute ideas and make suggestions.
I would suggest that keeping secrets and information overload are completely separate issues. Being transparent means having information available for those who wishes to access it. It does not mean blasting emails about everything to everyone every second of the day.
Transparency is crucial to innovation. Because it builds trust. Because it makes seeds of ideas and prompts for thoughts available. Someone from another project team who happens to be browsing through the thoughts and comments on my project may suddenly be struck with a great idea. This has happened. And continues to happen.
Curiosity is good! It needs to be encouraged. It is the basis for creativity. Looking at what others are doing opens up opportunities for cross-pollination. Ideas need to be discussed. And thrown about. They come alive then, and can be made useful.
Ideas kept in secret die.
Of course, these project systems I am talking about here are not open to the general public. Perhaps on some projects they should!
Imagine insurance companies opening up their financial systems to their clients. If clients knew how much money is lost through false claims, and how that affects their premiums, would that change their behaviour? If they knew how much their insurers pay out to real causes, how would that change their perception of the company?
Imagine the government’s decision making processes being open to the public. Imagine the participation. The sense of involvement and belonging that would build. Sure, clear boundaries will still be in place. Just because someone suggests something does not mean it becomes law the very next day.
Companies in financial stress who share financial information with their staff often find understanding from the floor, and a greater ability to pull together.
When something goes wrong with a project, and I tell my clients openly, and take appropriate responsibility, I build loyalty and respect. We are not perfect. So why do businesses pretend everything is going well ALL the time? That is not authentic. That breeds suspicion.
> How do you decide who needs to know?
Easy. It’s often based on rank and responsibility. If it doesn’t concern your responsibilities - you don’t need to know. If a brainstorming session is required to encourage ideas etc, then obviously it concerns you. Another factor organisations consider is sensitivity, risk and the impact of information in the wrong hands. If it could potentially cause damage to the organisation - then don’t spread it. Sometimes it’s also a matter of timing. Certain information is not ready to release until other factors have been considered.
> Most secrets are kept to protect empires and selfish interests.
Some secrets might be. Surely you’d have secrets within your organisation? I wouldn’t believe you if you said you didn’t have any!!!
> Most secrets are kept out of fear.
Fear also equals common sense and risk minimisation. You can substitute either of those terms for fear. These elements will always be considered when decisions are made.
> “Consider, however, what could happen if employees have access to the [KFC] recipe if they so wish. Their combined brainpower is thus available to contribute ideas and make suggestions.”
I would argue employees don’t need to see the recipie for this. They could still make improvement suggestions based on what regular customers see.
> “I would suggest that keeping secrets and information overload are completely separate issues. Being transparent means having information available for those who wishes to access it. It does not mean blasting emails about everything to everyone every second of the day.”
Information overload does not directly translate to emails. If an organisation opens its libraries of information to people who only need to see certain portions of it - then it’s overload (i.e. too much for what is needed). I think you’ll find that if you’re in a situation when you’re working on an important project that impacts a lot of people - you wouldn’t want certain things to get out. You’d make a determiniation over what needs to be staggered, protected or released.
> Ideas kept in secret die.
People who don’t EXECUTE ideas ensure they die.
> So why do businesses pretend everything is going well ALL the time?
One word - professionalism. See, if we talk about problems and weaknesses, then we’re not putting our best foot forward.
Thanks for your very considered comments Bassi!!! I really appreciate you taking the time to put them down.
I must still respectfully disagree with many of your points. I DO actually see the logic and get the reasoning behind them though. I can also see how many out there who will share your position.
Many organisations define rank and responsibilities too narrowly. Again out of fear. Fear of other ideas, or criticism, of appearing inept. In doing so we miss out on opportunities to engage the brains, insights, perspectives of the wider organisation. In doing so we risk reinventing the wheel, deploying standalone solutions to problems at a micro level with no awareness or consideration of the larger picture of the whole organisation.
There are secrets and there are secrets. Some secret keeping is sensible; others end up costing the project or organisation. An organisation should not publish its passwords on its website. When they are upgrading their IT infrastructure, it pays to make the needs discussions open to everyone. Someone will inevitably provide a new perspective, highlight a new challenge the IT core team may not be aware of. And when the orgainsation realises that IT is open, and how they do give so much consideration to the work, respect for the department will grow. There will be less of a them vs us situation so common in may organisations.
Fear is a great barrier to life and work. Deming himself encouraged the driving out of fear. Maintaining a fake façade or a border around an empire cost a lot of mental and emotional effort. It stops people coming together as people to work together on stuff that matters.
Everyone has unique insights to a given situation. Everyone who works in a business like KFC, from the weekly window cleaner to the Colonel himself, will have a view on the business. If you care about new ideas and perspectives, these are there for the taking. All it needs is the openness, willingness and confidence to listen.
In terms of information overload, I get your points. There is the making-available of raw information somewhere for people who want to get at it but don’t have to. And there is the more “official” communiqués which need to be planned, staggered and managed (but still with minimum spin and corporate speak of course).
Sure, execution is mandatory to realise an idea. No arguments there. The development of ideas is a different stage before planning and execution, Ideas cannot grow in isolation hidden from other people. Executing an anaemic idea is not that fruitful. Most businesses falter because they do not do enough idea growing. They quickly head into execution, event forgoing proper planning. No wonder money gets thrown out the window with minimum returns.
Pretending everything is perfect all the time = professionalism? That’s PR spin; integrity failure, authenticity gap… Being real, ethical, honest, truthful and responsible = professionalism. As humans, we want to engage with people who are real. Business is a human activity. I don’t pretend with my friends, so I don’t pretend with my clients.
“There are secrets and there are secrets. Some secret keeping is sensible; others end up costing the project or organisation. An organisation should not publish its passwords on its website. When they are upgrading their IT infrastructure, it pays to make the needs discussions open to everyone.”
> Unless it directly affects them - why do this? It’s such a waste of time and could cause problems. I just can’t see the advantages. If it’s ideas you’re after then idea generation can be facilitated through separate creativtity sessions . Making information available usually causes more problems than it’s worth - I’ve seen it happen too many times in my organisation. Project teams are structured in such a way as to solicit new ideas from staff anyway. Most people outside the IT dept wouldn’t even understand the technical mumbo jumbo in such documentation if it were made available.
“Fear is a great barrier to life and work. Deming himself encouraged the driving out of fear. Maintaining a fake façade or a border around an empire cost a lot of mental and emotional effort. It stops people coming together as people to work together on stuff that matters.”
> Fear (i.e. risk minimisation) has its place. When coming up with new ideas etc, you want people to go wild. But when it comes to implementation and eventually, the ongoing enhancement of that idea, then you want people to protect it. Remember, great ideas and organisations can tumble if a “no-fear”/non-risk minimisation approach is taken.
“Everyone has unique insights to a given situation. Everyone who works in a business like KFC, from the weekly window cleaner to the Colonel himself, will have a view on the business. If you care about new ideas and perspectives, these are there for the taking. All it needs is the openness, willingness and confidence to listen.”
> We don’t live in a perfect world. Somehow I don’t think senior management (or even most regular staff) will listen to a window cleaner (regardless of how good his ideas may be). If the window cleaner has advice to give - then he should be in a different profession. This is just the way it is. And before you say “oh, I reckon we should break out of the box and change these things…” ask yourself seriously: when was the last time your business solicited the advice of the window cleaner / garbage man? Be honest. I bet you and/or your management haven’t. It’s easy to tell other businesses to do outlandish things but doing it yourself is a different story. Hey, I’m just being honest here.
Thanks again for the comments.
There are official avenues to solicit ideas, and then there are ideas out of the blue. The two approaches give you different ideas. The first approach can tend to be considered, filtered, so as to only offer the “safe” and “sensible” ideas. We need more of the “unsafe” ideas because that is where the new stuff is.
Let’s not forget that transparency communicates very loudly of the desire for and openness to listen and involve others. Certainly in my experience it has done heaps to build morale collaboration, even with people not directly or constantly involved in the project. It makes communications easier, less formal, and less cumbersome. I have and continue to see it working; and no, you don’t have to believe me.
A clear line needs to be drawn between “ideas generation” and “implementation”. The former is anything goes playtime, with as little evaluation as possible. The latter is considered and analytical. You need both phases, and the clear boundary between them. This boundary can be incredibly hard to maintain.
There is a fine line between acting out of fear, and acting out of sensible carefulness. I suspect we can continue to debate semantics forever and never the twain shall meet. I do try and check in with myself whether decisions are made out of fear, or common sense. And sometimes fear is disguised as common sense. I try and never act out of fear. That is a difficult goal.
There is a tendency for conventional business thinking to take the extreme and absolute of any argument. Transparency = indiscriminately tell all; no fear = no common sense etc. I prefer a more open and gray approach.
I HAVE had late night conversations with cleaners in front of whiteboards! Was this overtly “soliciting advice”? Or engaging in conversation with another human with a unique perspective? Don’t know. Did I get some clarity and insight into the problem at hand? More often than not. Some of the clearest, cut-through-the-crap insights have come from taxi drivers! Hey, I’ll take a different perspective from anyone regardless of their profession or station in life - that’s half the fun of trying to solve a problem.
I find it interesting you think being open and transparent is “outlandish”. I prefer to think of it as a more authentic way to engage with the world. I want to be heard, so I make it a point to listen to others as much as I can humanly do. I like to feel involved, so I enable others to feel involved. Business is about people. And people like realness.
Unnecessary “risk-management” and “perception management”, arising out of our fear to be human, cost businesses a lot in terms of creativity and emotional commitment. Taken to the extreme it becomes a charade that is an end in itself.
[...] Reflecting on my post and the ensuing in-depth discussion Fostering involvement and buy-in – what the cat taught me [...]