RE: Dealing with people who are not interested

[Rick Price <rickp@mitra.com>]

Morris Taylor writes:

<....>

We need to keep in mind that not everyone shares our *culture*. This
can range from religious beliefs to how you think work should be
accomplished. We have to understand a person's culture before we can
ask them to change it. We should also realize that small changes can
have rather far reaching and profound effects. Nothing is ever simple.

Juran talks about an example of why control charts were intitially
used and then rejected in a good article at:
http://www.juran.com/research/articles/SP574.html

Failure to understand the culture of the people you are trying to
*change* is frequently fatal. In fact, the way they do things now
makes perfect sense to them, it might even make sense to you once you
understand where they are coming from. The behaviour may need to be
changed, but at least you will understand what has to be done to
actually change it.

Juran also mentions a rather good anthropology book called "Cultural
patterns and technical change" by Margaret Mead (in the above
paper). Things don't seem to have changed much in 50 years. The last
part of the book has a list of important points to remember when
introducing technical change. I just read the entire book, it was well
worth it.

In my opinion, one of the main reasons that Demming says you have to
get top management on board first is that people know what they are
*really* going to be rewarded for (even if they cannot verbalize it),
they may give you verbal assent, but in the end they do what they will
be rewarded for. 

It is also wise to keep in mind that rewards aren't just the paycheck,
rewards also come from the culture. Some (broader sense) cultures
don't even think of a paycheck as a reward, they work to live.

 > 
 > "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.

This is a very good and profound point. People are not stupid or
uneducated, they just see things differently than you. It would be
prudent to assume that their culture is making an efficient use of
it's resources according to it's goals and values.

Things can be improved of course, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 > 
 > 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).
 > 

<....>

 > 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 ... "
 > 

I have seen the best people leave 5 years in advance of the
calamity, by the time it happens, they have been long forgotten. The
best people are usually well connected in the unofficial
grapevine. They understand better than anyone else when the workplace 
is going toxic. 

If you want people, then treat them like people. If you want animals,
treat them like animals. But people do better knowledge work than
animals. 

 > Sincere Regards,
 > Morris

Rick Price
=====================================================================