I tend to be overly positive when discussing new ideas, my take is that when you are discussing change, you should always start from a position of anything is possible. It's true that you don't always get to do everything perfectly or as you'd like, however, why constrain something at the outset?
I do think about the details and challenges and get that some things aren't possible or there will be cultural or technical challenges with everything... however, there is a way to frame things that add to conversations rather than detracting from them.
There have been so many conversations / meetings that I've been in where people are quick to bring up the why something won't work or what the challenges will be and it frustrates me to no end.
My new question to them is simple: how would you solve it if you had to?
It's simple to point out why something won't work or how hard something is going to be... it's something totally different to figure out how to make stuff work, and trust me, there is always a way. Of course you can't do everything and some stuff has to be out of scope, however, instead of bringing up something negative why not just create a list of things to research (parking lot items)?
How do you keep conversations framed in constructive terms?
As a person who sees technical issues from a more negative perspective I would say that acknowledging risks is important.
In software all things are possible - but not all things are practical. So another step that helps keep the conversation going in a positive direction is a clear budget of resources, time and money.
For example - with a new idea present both the pros and the cons - and a list of risks. That shows to the negative thinkers in the room that you've considered the consequences of your idea. Listing them as risks rather than issues keeps them in the "solvable" frame in my opinion.
Finally encourage others to brainstorm with you about what it would take to get to the end goal. This includes people - include the negative thinkers - and helps create a sense of shared ownership.
But you do all these things already, so why I am I encouraging you?
David
Posted by: David | December 31, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Great question, Jon. I don't have any cut and dry answer. But the thing you and David mention about risk makes me think back to Frank Scavo's "ROI trap" postings (http://tinyurl.com/956lta).
As I recall that one, combined with your post, it makes me think of considering ROEI - return on emotional investment, and its corrolary, "loss." Those two words, Invest and Loss carry dangerously variable definitions. Change is obviously a challenge to many already-held views, to hard-learned processes or whatnot. The challenge or destruction of that earned "Equity" in people's mind's seems to be the roadblock.
Scavo sez: when considering benefits, people generally like to "take the sure bet." But when considering costs, people generally like to say, "I'll take my chances."
Sure bets are synonymous with tweaks and incrementalism. They're not really gambles at all and therefore, not potential "change" either.
And "costs"? For the group, discussing and/or committing to meaningful change ideas carries many into the zone of theory that leaves behind their hard-earned habits of expertise. ("Habits of expertise" says volumes now that I think of it.) Anyway, that undertaking is a danger to their company role or persona - a real, visceral emotional cost measured against a theoretical ROI.
Scavo points out, using IT proposals as his model, that framing 'risky' opportunities in more certain or hard terms of benefit goes a long way to getting minds open. Oddly enough, "doing your homework, Tiger"--backgrounding on the hot buttons of participants--a la, John Boyd's MO, would be the way to plus the chances of productive discussions. If you recall, OODA's orientation is mostly about knowing the other well enough to anticipate and preempt their moves; to be where they are before they are there themselves.
Did all that make sense?
(And happy new year!)
Posted by: mark brady | January 04, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Both, thank you for the comments!
David, great points - and I appreciate your big picture thinking!
Mark, yep, makes perfect sense! I wasn't thinking about Boyd when I wrote the post... but really should have been! Happy new year to you as well!
Posted by: Jon Strande | January 04, 2009 at 06:43 PM
One trick to get people thinking positively is to start with the question "If we had a solution, what would it look like?"
That usually gets people thinking of possibilities rather than putting up walls right away. It also lets you know what that person's concerns are so you can address them when proposing a solution.
Posted by: Sade Tagbo | January 12, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I very much agree with you!
Posted by: Albert Wong | March 06, 2009 at 03:15 AM