Want to Change The Organization? Change the Conversation

Yesterday I finished my "chapter" for the Age of Conversation eBook. The title, which I used for today's post, emerged from my work and speeches about change and the conversations that inevitably follow.  Like so many other things in life, I wished the conversations had taken place before, rather than after, the fact. It was through those conversations that I heard the deeper thoughts and feelings that people had about the organizational change or the talk that I had given.

It was during these conversations that people's minds, including my own, were changed. No one was asking anyone else to "buy in" by a certain date. We were just talking about what was possible, how we could get there, and all of the related "stuff" that might be important.

That caused me to begin to reject standard top-down models for change unless we could start with a wide ranging discussion first.  Don't hear me saying that managers shouldn't manage. Do hear me suggesting that when it comes to a change that isn't a crisis, managers would be well-served to just put their idea out there and let it be the subject of conversation. It will be anyway. Why not talk, listen, and learn with everybody who will be involved?

That's how we change our framework for thinking...and that's kind of the thrust of my chapter, so...

Back to the eBook. There are 100 thought leaders and social media mavens who took time to contribute. The proceeds go to Variety, The Children's Charity . I'll let you know when it's ready for purchase; it will be well worth the wait.

Comments

[Viji]

Looking forward to read your book. Quite interesting. Viji

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

"Top-down models for change" are symptomatic of unreflective management teams whose members are unaware not only of the effect of change on the morale, attitudes, and productivity of employees, but who presume - usually mistakenly - that they possess all required information and knowledge to answer the questions of what change is needed and how is it to be implemented.

Typically, this information is in groups other than top management - including outside of the organization itself - and, certainly, it is as or more likely to be found among the staff. Indeed, it is often the staff that has the best clues about where to look for this information, even where they don't possess it themselves.

Involving the staff in the entire change process not only makes the process more palatable and effectively implemented through their "ownership" of the final decisions arising from that method - through the conversations you refer to - it makes it more effective and productive. Managers certainly should manage - but they should manage assets, intelligence, and information that exist throughout - and even without - the firm, and not assume that they possess it all themselves.

This is another important value of not only what you refer to as conversations, but of conversations held before the event.

Excellent post!

[Steve Roesler]

Jim,

Thanks for taking the conversation a little deeper and wider.

When I was reading through your comment the first time, the word "reflective" jumped off the page. And isn't that what it's really all about? Those who pause to reflect and discern what people may need in a given situation are those who "meet people where they are" and capture both their minds and hearts.

Speed Kills, on highways and often in decision making. The best initiative with the best intentions can die on the vine if it isn't nurtured thoughtfully.

[Steve Roesler]

Viji,

I think it will be fascinating, with so many different people offering views from their unique perspectives.

[peter vajda]

Asking others (at work, at home and at play), "What do you think?" and actually listening, really listening, at a level 3, beyond "words" to the deeper meaning underneath the words requires commitment, intentionality, humility and courage. Many folks just don't have the inner strength and courage to do so. One reaspon is that such listening and taking a true and real interest, not a "faux interest" in others requires jettising one's ego. Ugh!

[Steve Roesler]

"What do you think?" means risking the chance of hearing the truth.

Then there's a choice: you can use it to set yourself free by addressing the situation or you can use it to shut down the people around you by telling them just how wrong you think they are.

What do you think?

[peter vajda]

Steve, I think you have your ever-astute mind and nimble finger on the pulse of life in relationship at work.

[Steve Roesler]

Gosh, wouldn't it be wonderful if that were but always true?!

I deeply appreciate the encouraging conversation, Peter.

[Valeria Maltoni]

And you moved to the right. It's fun not to know where you will be on the page when coming in. Your title here reminds me of something that Alan Webber said:

“There is a simple choice for us all. We can accept slower times as a given and slog it out with little sense of renewed possibility. Or we can change the conversation – and in so doing, find the future that we want to create.”