RE: Dealing with people who are not interested

["Morris Taylor" <wmt@netcomuk.co.uk>]

In his original post, Vic Forte wrote:
"...How should I approach those who tell me that they are not really
interested in flow charting, or say that they cannot see the benefit or
point in studying and trying to improve processes? ..."

Here are some thoughts ~ some joined up and some not so joined up. I hope
they are helpful.

Some people take to process mapping or flow-charting as naturally as a fish
to water. Others are like fish out of water. That is not a fault in, or of,
these people. It simply means that they are different. Yes, it would give
them an excellent opportunity to better understand and perhaps improve the
system in which they work. So how could they be approached?

Deming and others argued that employees go to work with a sincere intention
to contribute valuably. He declared that if they do not, then it is, in the
main, the 'fault' of the system rather than the individual. Some people deem
this a naïve view. It is nonetheless, IMO, a good point at which to start
until you have evidence to the contrary. I wonder whether these people have
a view, albeit incorrect, that flowcharting is tantamount to attempting to
tamper with a stable system. I'm not saying that it is tampering ~ only that
they may hold that view...?

If there is a 'distribution' at all, then it stands to reason that somebody
must populate the extremity of the left tail of the distribution. From time
to time, depending on the topic, I've been that 'soldier'. As the saying
goes: Been there. Done that. If more than a very small number "...cannot see
the benefit..." it may be the case that they have not benefited from an
explanation that excites, engages or interests them. I do not say that to
cause offence so please accept my apology in advance if I put it badly.

In understanding what underlies the behaviours (in this case: apparent
disinterest) of others, the 'Milan Question' can help:

"Under what circumstances does a person's behaviour make perfect sense to
them?" Writers like Covey ask the same question. It just looks different. It
is worth spending much time on developing answers to that question.

These answers are IMO a prerequisite to encouraging or coaching people
toward one form or another of transformation especially if unwillingness is
detected. Sometimes coaching is required to get at the answer. You cannot
however 'coach' someone if they are unwilling, whatever the reason for that
unwillingness. And, insofar as the interpretation of the available evidence
allows us to conclude, Radical Behaviourism is dead. Period.

More on the topic can be found in the writings of Gianfranco Cecchin in
books like 'Irreverence' and 'the cybernetics of prejudice in the practice
of psychotherapy' (both published by Karnac).

I have read on this list negative or ridiculing comments about exploring
*any* therapeutic view with respect to Deming's philosophy. I think that
rather sad, since it advocates that there is nothing to benefit the Deming
community from intelligent gleaning of other fields. Perhaps the cybernetics
of prejudice ~ who knows? The meaning of the greek root 'therapeutikos' lies
somewhere between healing change and transformation. And, yes, metanoia is
in there somewhere.

When asking people, leaders included, to become involved in any significant
change to their practices, customs or habits, there are many possible
sources of resistance. Try changing their values, beliefs and attitudes
without permission and the resistance will get much, much worse.

Resistance can often come from those who have most to offer in terms of
opportunities for improvement both for themselves and for the system.
Identifying and resolving resistance can deliver benefits far in excess of
those originally anticipated. That concept usually takes clients the longest
to digest. When they 'get it', the *real* work can begin.

Also helpful is a sense of the benefits that might accrue from such change
and to whom, and how, these benefits will be attributed and distributed.

A shared view of the general philosophy or 'rules' that will apply to
'surprises' can also help. Deming also said "what is your aim?" and then "by
what method?".

I have no way of knowing at a distance what may be in the minds of 'the
resistance'. I therefore offer this to consider:

Not long ago, one bank bought over a bigger bank. They have just reported
profitability of 11 million pounds sterling PER DAY. In the six months to
June they 'shed' seventeen thousand jobs. Many more are to go in the next
six months. I am fascinated by the hypothesis that we might benefit by
considering how those affected might have been feeling for quite some time
now and what they might have been thinking and doing. And how their morale
might be affected. And what intervention might be appropriate for each of
them as individuals and as groups. And many, many other questions...

I don't have enough information to either condone or criticise the situation
from the outside. I am 'neutrally curious'.

Finally:
In a thread on a different topic, Rick Price said: "... you shouldn't jerk
your employees around, the best leave first, leaving you with those who
cannot leave ... "


Sincere Regards,
Morris

Morris Taylor
Director - Development and Coaching
Motivation Technology
23 Sinclair Place, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH11 1AH
fax +44 (0)131 337 38 04
tel  +44 (0)131 313 14 15
==================================================================