Square Peg in Round Hole. "Let’s set up a creative thinking program." "OK, this should be in HR." When an organization-wide (cutting across functional groups) initiative is housed (structured) in a business unit without first working through the full aspects of the effort, one often finds the proverbial square peg in round hole problem. The resources are not well matched, personnel do not have the appropriate skill sets, the unit leadership does not have the ideal passion, etc. One then wonders why the initiative does not work out well.

The need to quickly identify a place to house an initiative is very strong because new things are disruptive and known entities more comforting. When there is an owner, someone becomes responsible to manage the new effort and there is a sense of ‘containing’ the newness. Yet, this should not be the first step taken. Why would one choose one home over another before the effort is clearly defined? When working on cross cutting initiatives like establishing a creative thinking initiative, the choice of a home may seem clear. "Let’s place it in Human Resources." Until one has defined the nature of the initiative, know how to implement it, and who or what might be needed to make it work, providing a structure should be the last thing done, not the first.

Improving the Process. Here is a four stage process that avoids the urge to house a project before its definition. The progression of stages -- Goal, Process, Resource, and Structure -- is particularly important because each provides answers to a logical, sequential set of questions. "What do you want to do? How are you going to do it? Who or What do you need to get it done? "How are you going to assure consistency, reproducibility and performance measurement of the efforts?" Descriptions of each stage are provided in chart form.

Stage 1: GOAL

Question: What do we want to achieve? Description: A common focus helps overcome individual agendas. This must be a shared goal. If there is insufficient time devoted to reaching a shared goal, the effort will not be optimized and the best scenario will be that not all participants will be engaged. Without a shared goal, the worst scenario will be that the entire effort will unwind and be discarded. Note that a shared goal is one that all participants can articulate in ‘their’ way. Hence, if the goal is not clearly stated, it will be a challenge to agree how to proceed.

Stage 2: PROCESS

Question: How are we going to do it? Description: Of all the stages, this may be the most important one. If the process is poorly considered, then the entire effort is at risk. Asking this how question, at this point, will focus the group on methods and procedures to be aligned with the goal, purpose, or vision and hold off discussions about what can’t be done because there is a lack of personnel or funds. As the original goal was shared by all participants, completing this stage before considering resources should not be controversial. This stage is critically important if one is building a coalition working on a common cause. Then it will be important to agree on desired behaviors as part of the process that will help offset differences in personal values and organization norms. Decision making considerations must be articulated here as well. Is this by consensus? How is consensus defined? Who represents each group? Building a coalition is a deliberate act and if a key step is missed, it makes the effort more difficult.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next