RE: Dealing with people who are not interested

[Hamilton John TSgt 17TRW/MO <John.Hamilton@goodfellow.af.mil>]

After being in the US Air Force for 18 years I feel I have plenty of
experience working with people who are just not interested.  I believe this
situation occurs in any organization.  IMO the problem is two-fold.  

First, there are the personalities, that John Constantine so aptly pointed
out, that "do not choose to learn any more than they knew when they first
were told 'everybody knows...'."  Phrases like, "This is the way it's always
been done." or "This is the way I was taught." will help you focus on these
people like a magnet draws iron filings.  My suggestion is to stay away from
them.  Don't waste your time, energy and effort trying to convert them.
They will not evolve and eventually go the way of the dinosaur who can not
adapt.

Second is the (military) system itself.  I'm not sure of the amount of
turn-over in a civilian organization, but the Air Force rotates supervisory
(enlisted) personnel approximately every three years and management
(officers) every two years. This is often staggered within the unit where
50% will leave one year and 50% the next.  How would you like to run an
organization where every two years you have 100% turnover in management!!!  

Now comes the problem: you, as a manager, have two years to make your mark.
The first few months are featured by getting aquatinted with your key
personnel and the last month or so with readying for your next assignment.
Actually, you have around 18 months to create results. Analysis takes time.
Teams take time.  Quality takes time that you just don't have.  Meanwhile,
your boss just wants the bottom line because they are also in the same
situation as you are: getting results, making their mark, moving on (and
hopefully up.)

So the questions is, "With whom and where do I focus my efforts to get
results we need?"   In my learning, I recall looking at control charts in
zones; where zone A was one standard deviation above and below the average,
B was two and C, three.  If we hypothetically graphed people's understanding
of quality and willingness to apply those principles in a similar chart,
perhaps we can identify where to focus our efforts.  

In zone C, there are two types of thought, the quality zealot (like most of
us on the DEN) and the skeptic. No need to focus on these areas since only
around 4.7% of the data is found there. Half of that is you and the other
half doesn't want to hear it.  In zone B you have the quality supporters on
one side and the antagonists on the other making up 27% of the population.
The majority of people, the 68% who come to work, do their job and go home,
are in zone A.   These two areas, the supporters (half of zone B) and the
average worker, should be the main areas of focus.  Mathematically,  this
comprises 80% of the population.  That should be plenty of work and you
should see great rewards from efforts here.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that the majority of influence and
power (managers and senior leaders) falls in the skeptic and antagonist
areas in zones B and C.  By focusing on people or areas that are willing to
try and support quality efforts, you can show improvement results and
(hopefully) convert those of influence into giving these efforts support
since they are (or should be) already working.

I know my head still hurts from banging it against the wall, but I don't
give up.  Either should you.

TSgt John Hamilton Jr
17 TRW/MO
Goodfellow AFB, TX
john.hamilton@goodfellow.af.mil
477-5132
===========================================================================