We Have Always Done It That Way

Chip and Dan Heath have a column in Fast Company magazine related to their “Made to Stick” book, and in June they discuss word of mouth marketing. In short, they argue that in order to authentically generate conversations, you have to be distinctive. One problem: distinctive tends to run counter to “always done it that way.”

“Most organizations systematically snuff out anything that’s distinctive enough to spark conversation, usually thorugh processes and committees. Would woolen caps for smoothie bottles [done by a successful bottler in England] have survived a committee decision at Coca-Cola? Could a formal market-research process have justified the VW Beetle’s bud vase? …When people with different opinions compromise, they meet in the middle, not at the edge. But the edge is what sparks conversation.”

We have created organizations that are all focused on the middle. On pleasing the most people. That’s fine–we don’t have to give that up–but why not create some structures that at least allow for distinction?

Tags: We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
4 Comments »

The folks at 37 Signals put up a nice post that gets at the psychological traps that can snare us in WHADITW thinking. Their solution is to start projects with ONLY four hours of work, before they “come up for air” and reevaluate.

“When you’ve done nothing, you don’t have a realistic view of what it’s going to take. But when you’ve spent days or weeks on something, you can get too invested. It becomes hard to change, admit you’re wrong, or that what you’ve been doing isn’t actually worth more effort.”

Imagine if you’d been doing it that way for years! Oh…right….you can.

Tags: The Way We Execute, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
No Comments »

Thanks to Rosetta Thurman for including us in her “Friday Four” links on Friday. Rosetta has a blog called “Perspectives From the Pipeline: Observations on the Nonprofit Sector from the Next Generation.” She liked the post that I did about constraints-driven solutions. How about this quote from Rosetta:

What’s that you say? We don’t have to automatically increase our budget every year? There may be different and cheaper and better ways to do things? Hmmm, now can we just brand that on nonprofit leaders’ foreheads with hot fireplace pokers?

Ouch!

Tags: The Way We Manage, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
2 Comments »

There comes a point in many high-level conversations in the association community where someone plays the “we need to have consensus” card. These conversations often involve Board members or at least senior staff members, and the focus of the conversations is usually contentious. Examples: what should be our strategic priority this year? How should we word that policy so it is fair to everyone? Whose budget should pay for this new program? What program are we going to cut to make room for this new program? You typically start the conversation with great energy, because the topic is truly important. As you progress, however, you discover some intense disagreement among the members of the group, and the conversation stalls. You are not able to overcome the disagreements. People are now officially uncomfortable.

So there is a call for “consensus.” The underlying message is, “We’re not agreeing on this and it is important that we agree.” Of course, if you’re honest with yourself, a more accurate translation might be, “You are not agreeing with me on this and it is important that you agree with me.” But either way, the focus is on agreement or the lack thereof. When people become aware of a deep disagreement on an important topic, they feel they are failing in the conversation, and there is an urge to push towards agreement. What else can I tell you to get you to agree? We’re running out of time, so please just agree! This is a natural tendency, but it is a huge mistake.

At the root of this mistake is our lack of understanding of what consensus really is. It is commonly defined in terms of agreement, and this comes, understandably, from our negative experiences with “majority rule.” In situations of majority rule, those in the minority are often quite unhappy with the decision””so much so that during implementation, they can sabotage or derail the process, either consciously or not. In seeking to avoid these problems, we try to reach what we call consensus””where everyone agrees.

Getting everyone to actually agree, however, is often impossible. And as experts in the field of decision making tell us, it is not required. Michael Roberto provides an excellent definition of consensus that will help association leaders move more effectively through this dilemma. Consensus is defined as a high level of shared understanding combined with a high level of commitment. Note the absence of the notion of agreement. This is ultimately a more sophisticated way of understanding a common way of talking about consensus: “is this a decision everyone can live with.”

So when you encounter a tough conversation where there is clear disagreement, focus your attention on deepening the understanding, and then talking about commitment. The shared understanding piece is too often ignored. When we disagree, we argue more vehemently for our particular answer, and our opponents do the same. But neither side actually seeks to understand why the other side holds their position. When you do this, you will deepen the understanding enough that, even if neither side changes their mind, they at least understand the reasoning. This means that if the decision doesn’t go their way, they at least understand where the other side is coming from, and, more importantly, you know that the “winning” side understands your arguments (this strongly increases the chance that you’ll implement even if you’re on the losing side).

Second, make sure you have a conscious commitment on all sides to implement the decision. Don’t skip this step, and don’t assume that an awkward silence means everyone is committed. Ask people to express reservations. Ask people what their action plans are. Make it clear that everyone will work together to hold each other accountable. This becomes partly an issue of group culture. Sometimes you have to develop a culture where people are willing to speak their minds before you can have success in reaching a high level of commitment. You also develop this over time by actually holding people accountable. In the future if people do not come through as promised, you have to be able to discuss that openly with the group. If you avoid that uncomfortable conversation, then you will undermine any future attempt to achieve consensus.

Tags: The Way We Manage, We've Always Done It That Way by Jamie
No Comments »