Let's assume, just for a minute, that the reason bad decisions are made is a lack of discussion. Amartya Sen has a great piece in the current issue of The New Republic, Democracy and Its Global Roots, about the historic importance of "public reasoning." Basically, if leaders aren't listening, if they think they know better, they are doomed to stupid decisions.
Frank Patrick points to a piece in The McKinsey Quarterly, The Psychology of Change Management, summarizing the article in the Six Layers of Resistance to Buy-in:
Layer One - Lack of agreement on the problem.
Layer Two - Lack of agreement on a direction for a solution.
Layer Three - Lack of agreement that the solution addresses the full problem.
Layer Four - Concerns regarding side effects of the solution.
Layer Five - Concerns regarding obstacles to implementation of the solution.
Layer Six - Unspoken fears.
Defining and implementing a solution requires not just the technical aspects of the problem, but also the ability to bring stakeholders and necessary participants through the Six Layers. In the McKinsey article, the first condition of seeing the point of the change and agreeing with it sufficiently to give it a shot is clearly the broadest, requiring getting through the first four layers. Without agreement on a problem, there's no point talking about a change. Even if everyone recognizes the problem, it may be so ingrained that it's seen as the nature of doing what we do, with no real way of dealing with it. A direction is one thing, but if people are going to be brought to agree with it, a whole lot of dotted i's and crossed t's are needed....
Finally, one of the toughest layers of resistance, if it appears, is number six -- unspoken fear, often fear of "going it alone." Especially for changes that involve considerable culture change -- major changes in behavior -- being the first out of the trenches and out into no-man's-land can be a daunting experience.
Okay -- back to Sen's piece:
To ignore the centrality of public reasoning in the idea of democracy not only distorts and diminishes the history of democratic ideas, it also detracts attention from the interactive processes through which a democracy functions and on which its success depends. The neglect of the global roots of public reasoning, which is a big loss in itself, goes with the undermining of an adequate understanding of the place and the role of democracy in the contemporary world. Even with the expansion of adult franchise and fair elections, free and uncensored deliberation is important for people to be able to determine what they must demand, what they should criticize, and how they ought to vote.
The underlying feature of both articles is how hierarchy and exclusivity that minimizes debate in public and private decision-making undermines good decisions. Leaders can make a huge difference when they make a decision that, at the time it is made appears wrong but that turns out to be the right one (I am not talking about you, Mr. Bush), but generally, because there are many more good minds to apply to a problem than any organization can contain, debate and transparency that facilitates informed discussion are essential to improving most decisions.
The confluence of network theory, management strategies, the demand for increasing transparency in organizations and, especially, accounting and governance, have created many new competitive opportunities for companies large and small. By opening its books, its strategic options and employee contracts to scrutiny, companies can tap the same positive forces that have made open source software more reliable than proprietary operating systems and applications as investors and part-time workers identify “bugs” in the company’s structure and apply their resources (time and money) and intelligence to creating greater efficiency.
An open information environment provides for better informed decisions by all players in the economy, if society can organize itself to begin to make sense of all the data describing business, employment, value, social capital, network effects and specific markets or business. These analytical roles are the future of the Western economies currently seeing their manufacturing bases removed to lower-cost, lower-regulation locales. As more information becomes available, the highest value work will remain inside networks of analysts that increase the value of logistical planning, manufacturing, marketing, and product development. These networks will be at the heart of value systems that span the globe while driving local physical economies (food, services and light manufacturing near the customer) to sustain the Western lead in economic performance, if companies make the change to adopt the dynamic workstyles that allow these systems to come into a being and change constantly without completely unraveling. I see a very real risk that in a desire to protect current working patterns, the West will sabotage its transition to success in an information-dependent world.
Posted by Mitch Ratcliffe at October 3, 2003 06:26 PM | TrackBack