In teamwork there are often one or more members with ideas of making a significant change. Sometimes most or all of the team might be up for it and the change still fails to take. Why?
> It’s common to find people only raising issues that require a change reactively as the issue comes up.
So true!
Thanks for sharing. I have a blunt question: while people were aligned under the same vision or self organized through reteaming, what happened to some priority that wasn't included or supported, but strongly felt by one or very few individuals? I suppose they understood their ultimate role as a leader or some chose to leave.
Part of the work was getting into each area of the organisation and working with experienced people in those areas to understand what they thought was important.
We'd capture that in various ways, trying to relate activities to problems, needs, capabilities and outcomes. This often identified important work that we'd otherwise be unaware of.
We might not have been able to prioritise everything at once but recognising and acknowledging needs and helping make timely and clear prioritisation decisions goes a long way.
Still trust takes time to build and certainly people left before trust was established. And sometimes we made missteps where trust was lost. Most important is you are open to learning and improving. You don't start with perfect knowledge.
Well the starting point would be expect such an opportunity to be expressed in terms of the potential outcome.
Of course some people fall in love with a solution and anchor to it. It can help to work with them to try map out the logic they have for why they think a given solution may help progress your orgsnisation in the direction its trying to go.
We used the idea of causal chains for this. We would explore the connections between the solution and the various intermediate outcomes that might link it to an important goal for the organisation. Sometimes you would realise they were onto something. More often you would identify more options which had a higher probability of success. The positive is you both would make that doscovery together.
I am sure sometimes people left to go work somewhere where they didn't need to think about whether their pet solution might reasonably cause the desired effect. But many (most?) started to look at work differently - as bets or experiments.
> It’s common to find people only raising issues that require a change reactively as the issue comes up.
So true!
Thanks for sharing. I have a blunt question: while people were aligned under the same vision or self organized through reteaming, what happened to some priority that wasn't included or supported, but strongly felt by one or very few individuals? I suppose they understood their ultimate role as a leader or some chose to leave.
Part of the work was getting into each area of the organisation and working with experienced people in those areas to understand what they thought was important.
We'd capture that in various ways, trying to relate activities to problems, needs, capabilities and outcomes. This often identified important work that we'd otherwise be unaware of.
We might not have been able to prioritise everything at once but recognising and acknowledging needs and helping make timely and clear prioritisation decisions goes a long way.
Still trust takes time to build and certainly people left before trust was established. And sometimes we made missteps where trust was lost. Most important is you are open to learning and improving. You don't start with perfect knowledge.
Well the starting point would be expect such an opportunity to be expressed in terms of the potential outcome.
Of course some people fall in love with a solution and anchor to it. It can help to work with them to try map out the logic they have for why they think a given solution may help progress your orgsnisation in the direction its trying to go.
We used the idea of causal chains for this. We would explore the connections between the solution and the various intermediate outcomes that might link it to an important goal for the organisation. Sometimes you would realise they were onto something. More often you would identify more options which had a higher probability of success. The positive is you both would make that doscovery together.
I am sure sometimes people left to go work somewhere where they didn't need to think about whether their pet solution might reasonably cause the desired effect. But many (most?) started to look at work differently - as bets or experiments.