What is Critical Mass?
29 June 2009
Just what is Critical Mass? A very important religious xperience?
No..!
The term Critical Mass, in this instance, I am defining as the size of the group of people necessary for an idea to be adopted by the whole of an organisation.
Why do I need a Critical Mass?
Because even if you are able to develop a brilliant new strategy or change initiative you will still have to develop organisational ownership and commitment if your ambitions are ever to be realised.
Since the days of Coch and French, who in 1948 ~ yes that's right 1948; we like to consider ourselves so smart these days… ~ who in their article “Overcoming Resistance to Change” it has been known that there is a highly beneficial impact of involving people in changes that affect them. I know that is a surprise to you, but hey that's what we need sociologists and psychologists for; to prove that common sense really is the truth.
Coch and French conducted experiments on the effects of involving employees in changing work procedures. They found that by including them in the change process from the VERY BEGINNING, they were able to reduce resistance to the implementation of the new work procedures. High & Early Involvement Groups out performed the other groups and experienced an increase in productivity while Non & Late Involvement Groups experienced a drop in productivity, with an increase in grievances and resignations.
When people are excluded from the change process from the very beginning, they rarely exhibit the necessary levels of ownership and commitment to see the new idea or strategy through to successful
implementation. The level of ownership and commitments does go up when people are asked for opinions or input once the strategy or idea has been developed, but this pales in comparison to the levels achieved when people are involved in its creation.
The reverse of ownership is resistance and the likelihood is that if we don’t have one we will inevitably have the other…
The Critical Mass required for a successful implementation is said to range between 20 and 40 percent of all employees. You can describe the membership of the organisation as a bell shaped curve. On one tail of the curve will be those people who will readily adopt the new strategy because they are predisposed to such changes and on the other tail you will find about the same number who are predisposed to reject the new idea whatever the benefits. And in the middle you have the, great unwashed…
Sorry, or should I say those without a natural predisposition to the initiative. Depending on how the change is introduced they can move either way. Often this is where the phrase “buy-in” comes in to play. "I’ve thought, or bought, a great idea now let me sell it to
the troops…I understand the value of this idea, you don’t so let me sell it to you and convince you or it’s worth".
The levels of involvement virtually eliminate the need to sell
the idea, because those involved, a critical mass of the population, thought of the idea in the first place…
And who’s ideas do we like the most..? Our own of course...
Never mind writing about involvement, lets do it.
~ Let me know your thoughts on Critical Mass
Permalink Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)
Share this on 
How to set ground rules for meetings
23 June 2009
A while back I wrote a blog about the advantages of using facilitators or ground rules to improve the internal communication that happens in meetings, but didn't look at the process by which such ground rules could be set. So it might help some if I do so now...
If I am operating as a facilitator in some internal communication project I do prefer to engage the delegates in a debate with a set of ground rule statements on sticky labels or cards and invite them to
prioritise the list plus add in up to three of their own.
Such statements include:
- Be punctual when returning from breaks
- One person speaks at a time, no side talking or interrupting
- Respect confidentiality, the speaker owns to copyright
- Turn off mobile devices, yes that is OFF not silent
- Help the record keep accurate note of the flip charts
- Make your own needs known to the group
- Speak for yourself. Say "I believe/think" rather than infer a whole group of people do
- Offer ideas as "one idea we could discuss" rather than "My idea is"
Once the group or groups have had their 10 minutes to think and discuss the results go on the wall as a display mechanism and reminder. I've not told them which one are right or best, so they recognise they've made their own choices and tend to stick to them. Usually nothing more needs to be said and it has only taken say 12 - 15 minutes, including set up and de-brief.
- What approaches do you use to set ground rules with new groups of delegates?
- What ground rule statements do you find most helpful to improve communication within groups and meetings?
Permalink Comments (2) Trackbacks (0)
Share this on
Alternative Dispute Resolution
15 June 2009
by Professor Kevin Nwosu ~ Nigeria
Accra, Ghana; May 2009
Kevin, a Professor of Law, is one of those people who immediately command the attention and respect of an audience. He led us through the complex topic of Alternative Dispute Resolution with comsumate easy, no notes and a highly ammusing, entertaining and engaging style. Rather than attempt to mirror his style in this simple blog I will attempt to review some of the areas he convered.
Conflict is on the increase
The consequences of the current economic situation could mean you need to deal with job/role changes, management re-structuring, agreeing terms of leaving a post, finding common ground and agreeements on partnership arrangements or restoring more effective working relations and practices or it may well be that the option of just leaving a job is no longer there and people have to find ways to resolve the issues between them in order to continue working together in a productive way.
Resolving disputes is costly and time consuming
There are many factors to explain why there is a need for alternative dispute resolution ~ the huge increase in the number of employee complaints (employment tribunal cases reached record levels last year), the higher levels of compensation, the continuing introduction of new employment legislation, the increase of employee conflicts including harassment and bullying and, for many, the realisation that formal procedures and investigations can in some circumstances be so adversarial and stressful to all concerned that any possibility
of people working together again is minimal.
What is “Alternative Dispute Resolution?”
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) includes dispute resolution processes and techniques that fall outside of the legal or judicial process. Despite historic resistance to ADR by both parties and their advocates, ADR has gained widespread acceptance among both the general public and the legal profession in recent years. In fact, some courts now require some parties to resort to ADR of some type, usually mediation, before permitting the parties cases to be tried. The rising popularity of ADR can be explained by the increasing caseload of traditional courts, the perception that ADR imposes fewer costs than litigation, a preference for confidentiality, and the desire of some parties to have greater control over the selection of the individual or individuals who will decide their dispute.
The Brave New World of Dispute Resolution
When normal conversation and negotiations fail litigation has been the primary resort for resolving disputes for centuries. The trend over the last 10 years has seen the number of cases referred to litigation drop steadily year by year. The number of Solicitors and even Judges training as facilitators is also on the increase. Many parties have determined that litigation should be used as a last resort, and partly by market conditions, where many are shying away from the cost, time and uncertainty of litigation. Ask any business man what is the best way of sorting out a problem and he is certainly going to give you a scale starting with doing a deal directly and ending with litigation if all else fails. Most would rather
maintain control and cut a deal preferably on favourable terms rather than rely on the Courts.
What are the options? These are the most common
- Adjudication
- Arbitration
- Conciliation
- Expert Evaluation
- Mediation
ADR includes informal tribunals, informal mediative processes, formal tribunals and formal mediative processes. The classic formal tribunal forms of ADR are arbitration (both binding and advisory or non-binding) and private judges (either sitting alone, on panels or over summary jury trials). The classic formal mediative process is referral for mediation before a court appointed mediator or mediation panel. Classic informal methods include social processes, referrals to non-formal authorities (such as a respected member of a trade or social group) and intercession.
Adjudication
This is the process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved. While adjudication can be entered into voluntarily it is generally a legal process and the outcomes are binding. Adjudication is now the most common
form of dispute resolution in the construction and engineering industry and often contained as a clause in the contract signed prior to work beginning.
Arbitration
This can be used to resolve any dispute provided there is an agreement to use it. The neutral arbitrator is appointed to resolve any dispute that their parties refer, and he or she is bound respectively by the arbitration rules agreed and by the general tenets of the Arbitration Act 1996. In arbitration, while participation is typically voluntary there is a third party who, as a private judge, imposes a resolution. Arbitrations often occur because parties to contracts agree that any future dispute concerning the agreement
will be resolved by arbitration. Although parties may appeal arbitration outcomes in Court later, such appeals face an exacting review of the process and results of the previous arbitration. Arbitration can be made mandatory and binding, similar to mediation. However, the principal distinction is that whereas a mediator will try to help the parties find a middle ground on which to compromise, the arbitrator remains totally removed from the settlement process and will only give a determination of liability and, if appropriate, an indication of the quantum of damages payable.
Conciliation
This is the use of an agreed neutral third party to act as both mediator and if the dispute does not settle through the conciliation the third party may also be asked to act as adjudicator. The third party often possess some expert knowledge in the relevant domain. The decision is final and can be made binding unles set aside by
litigation or arbitration. Conciliation is generally a less formal form of arbitration. This process does not require an existence of any prior agreement. Any party can request the other party to appoint a conciliator. If a party rejects an offer to conciliate, there can be no conciliation. When it appears to the conciliator that elements of settlement exist, he may draw up the terms of settlement and send it to the parties for their acceptance. If both the parties sign the settlement document, it shall be final and binding on both.
Expert Evaluation
This involves a neutral expert being appointed by the parties to decide on either a technical or legal issue, and the decision is usually agreed as final and binding.
Mediation
This is the most common ADR process where the mediator is appointed purely to assist the parties reach a decision. The process is entirely voluntary and confidential. The mediator, who facilitates the resolution process has no advisory role so while they may suggest a resolution this can not be imposed as a resolution on the parties. Mediation aims to assist two (or more) people in reaching an agreement. The parties themselves determine the
conditions of any settlements reached— rather than accepting something imposed by a third party. Mediators use techniques and skills to open and/or improve dialogue between disputants, aiming to help the parties reach an agreement on the disputed matter. Normally, all parties must view the mediator as impartial.
Several different styles of mediation exist: evaluative, facilitative, and transformative. Evaluative mediation has somewhat of an advisory role in that its practitioners evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each side's argument should they go to court; whereas facilitative mediators and transformative mediators do not do this. Furthermore, the definitions of mediation used by the different styles of mediation differ in that evaluative mediation has the main drive and goal of settlement, while transformative mediation, in contrast, looks at conflict as a crisis in communication
and seeks to help resolve the conflict, thereby allowing people to feel empowered in themselves and better about each other. The agreement that arises from this type of mediation occurs as a natural outcome of the resolution of conflict.
Workplace Mediation is a structured process whereby an impartial mediator facilitates communication between those in
dispute in order for them to come up with mutually agreed solutions on how to improve their working relationship in the future.
Workplace Mediation is becoming an increasingly popular dispute resolution method to resolve interpersonal employee
conflicts including harassment and bullying complaints.
Workplace Mediation is based on the principles of encouraging constructive communication in a safe and confidential environment, identifying mutual solutions and agreements and restoring respectful, professional working relationships.
In many cases of harassment or bullying, people want certain behaviours or language to change and do not wish to go down
the route of formal investigation, particularly if they want the working relationship to continue. Often there are issues on both sides which could be helped by better communication and understanding - facilitated by an experienced mediator. If the mediation is not successful or if the complaint is more serious, then people can always invoke formal or legal procedures. Mediation is also more likely to support individual employees in resolving their working difficulties and to actively encourage respectful working practices.
If you want to know more about Kevin and his work in Africa then check out the Employment Relations Center
Permalink Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)
Share this on
Performance Management from Roy Braxton
7 June 2009
One of the other speakers at the conference in Ghana ~ Managing Employees during turbulent times, May 2009 ~ was Roy Braxton
Roy is CEO of Braxton and co-authored ~ Crafting and Executing Strategy: South African Edition ~ which is an adaptation of the market-leading American book of the same name by Thompson, Strickland & Gamble. The aim of the book is to effectively and interestingly cover what every senior-level or MBA student needs to know about crafting, executing and aligning business strategies. The book has a solidly mainstream, balanced approach mirroring both the best academic thinking and the pragmatism of real-world strategic management.
Roy is an international thought leader around strategy, culture and people management knowledge, providing solutions, services and products to corporate, medium and emerging (small) businesses.
He spoke of the need for strategic positioning and alignment with clear design and implementation of organisation and business unit strategies alongside accountability frameworks for individuals and teams
In Roy's opinion "Good People Management" requires a combination of people management strategy, process design and implementation through systems and technology. Performance management without the culture of learning and accountability is unsustainable alongside these elements the processes and technology must make the aspirations possible, for the organisations, their teams and each individual.
For me the big insight was the need to shift balance of accountability and responsibility toward the individual building their own brand and performance rather than the external drive coming from the organisation. Performance management approaches which empower are far more likely to actually work...
What are your thoughts on "performance management"
For more on Roy please visit ~ http://www.braxtongrp.com
Permalink Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)
Share this on
What are these turbulent times in Ghana
4 June 2009
As part of the opening to the conference in Ghana ~ "Managing employees during turbulent times" it seemed appropriate to define what we meant by "turbulent times" and also "management problems"
In discussing what “turbulent times” meant in Ghana these were amongst the thoughts expressed by the delegates
- No bank loans to start or expand business
- Lack of Infrastructure & Transportation problems
- National Service
- Brain drain - loss of talent to other companies and other countries
- The constant pressure by employees for wage increases
- The constant pressure by the companies for an increase in productivity
- Inward Business development or aid has been reduced recently
- Jobs with no respect that no one wants to do
- Is the growth rate fast enough for the young?
- National deficit ~ $8b & rising + low growth
Some of the obvious management problems visible in the national news were...
- Vodafone growth 15%, with 11% in Africa yet a declaration to a $1Billion cost reduction
- Junior Doctors versus Government negotiation were being rescheduled again with the Doctors saying ~ " we are not in a hurry to go back to work”
- The Police are being asked to lead the crusade to eliminate crime and yet face social problems of their own including poor housing and logistics
- The School Teachers were resisting a move from a 4 years ciriculum to a 3 year version...
On reflection the problems sited in Ghana would in the main be those listed by an audience in the UK and probably in any country; with the exception of items like National Service, altough I'm sure some in the UK would be calling for it's re-introduction...
The twin debate proposed by the conference is the age old cherry - how do we get high levels of productivity while remaining fiscally prudent..?
Can you do all the soft and fancy stuff to produce a highly engaged and productive workforce while keeping the purse strings tight..? Are these two key business imperatives mutually exclusive? are they "chicken and egg"? Can you have both? If so which one comes first?
Former Ghana President Jerry John Rawlings has part of the answer..
“What is required is the integrity of leadership and ability to empower the people. Leadership should have confidence in our people and not feel intimidated by empowering them..."
In my opinion - you can have both and it is not chicken and egg ~ the answer is to go for engagement, to go for heart and mind, for by winning that you gain the productivity you desire.
If you push too hard on the numbers and force the speed and restrict all the budgets then you risk killing morale and the disretionary effort which underpins success.
Still we had a couple of hours to debate these ideas in Ghana and to study the theories and the facts...
What are your thoughts on the matter..?
Next time I'll look at Performance Management as introduced by Roy Braxton at the conference.
Permalink Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)
Share this on
