Why Good Ideas Die … And A Simple Approach To Saving Them
Many a good idea has been sabotaged by a co-worker who, during a presentation, cuts right in to say, “That’s a good idea but…” Readers of this article will learn what tactics they can use to effectively disarm and discourage such a saboteur and allow their ideas to be heard fully and ultimately win acceptance.
“And another good idea is lost”
“Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions?”
|
|
Samantha has just presented her proposal to the Capital Investment Committee. She has done everything right so far. Her team was tasked with finding an “out-of –the-box” solution to a critical problem. They consulted widely within the company, with customers, and outside experts. When a great solution emerged they checked in with the various interest groups. They adapted to feedback and kept key influencers informed. Their clear, concise proposal outlines the main factors, the need for this proposed innovation, the method followed to develop the proposal, the alternatives that were considered and the advantages and risks of their recommendation. They were also careful to get the “look and feel” right – their process was professional and appropriate. It was all textbook classic.
At first, a few committee members ask Samantha some pretty innocuous questions. But then, all of a sudden, Dan Jones clears his throat and the room falls silent. Here’s the thing about Dan Jones – he knows how to act like a team player, but in truth, he isn’t one. In this case, Dan sees Samantha’s rapid career advancement as a personal threat.
He speaks: “Samantha, I appreciate your group’s hard work, but in all honesty, I have to question whether this was appropriate because [blah-blah…worry-worry…], so I move that before we consider your “scheme” it should first be referred to the Legal Issues Committee where these concerns can be properly addressed.”
Samantha opens her mouth but she just can’t find the right words. Dan’s attack (and that’s really what it is) feels unfair and unjustified, but right now, at this critical moment, she does not have a simple, effective rebuttal. She feels that whatever she says will make matters worse. But she has to say something, and even as she speaks she knows her comments aren’t responding well to Dan’s “gotcha.” So, the pile-on begins. First, one person picks up a detail in her response and asks a question that she cannot entirely understand or answer. Then, Dan comes in with another zinger. She looks around the room for support. Silence.
The committee votes to send Samantha’s proposal to what might as well be called the Committee for Infinite Delay. As a result, the company misses an important opportunity. In a few months, Samantha will leave. She’ll be OK – but will the company she left behind also be OK?
Does this scenario seem familiar? We have all witnessed, far too often, excellent ideas that die, even though they have been very well communicated. They die for reasons that are not completely rational. This can be infuriating and, more importantly, result in huge opportunity costs for the company.
It shouldn’t have to be this way. Moreover, for business leaders today, such lost opportunities are simply not acceptable. The stakes are higher and the challenges greater now because our world is changing at a much more rapid pace than ever. Businesses have always had to adapt in order to survive, and this has always been a challenge because adaptation requires good ideas, consumes resources, and entails risk. But today the rate of change is easily twice what it was 20 years ago. Yet the resources and expertise available for adapting to change have increased very little, if at all.
John Kotter, professor emeritus of Harvard Business School, has focused significant research on the challenge of large-scale change. From this research he has developed an 8-Step Process for Leading Change . Critical to the success of this model is the concept of engaging the organization – creating buy-in for the change. We wrote our book, Buy-In: Saving Your Good Idea from Being Shot Down, to help address some of the challenges in getting that critical engagement and support. The only way to overcome these challenges is to develop an understanding of the problem and some possible solutions. In the book and in this article, we will show you a counterintuitive, yet highly effective method to ensure that important good ideas can prevail. But first, we need to understand the problem of why people shoot down good ideas.
Idea-killing Attacks
Why would anyone want to kill a good idea? Most of our co-workers are decent people who want good things to happen. But people are also complex, and many of us, from time to time, may be susceptible to common, human failings that can lead to the premature demise of a good idea. These failings may include: jealousy; fear; complacency; confusion; conflict of interest; short sightedness; vanity; and gullibility. However, the causes do not really matter – you can only respond to the behavior, namely the launching of challenging attacks to your ideas. The best antidote (a respectful, clear, short, simple rebuttal) serves you well, regardless of the attacker’s motivation.
We’ve observed that these attacks all share several characteristics. They can be used to strike almost any good idea (which makes them useful for habitual attackers); they can be easily customized to suit the idea at hand (which makes them appear thoughtful and worth considering); they can seem well-intended (which builds sympathy for the attacker); and they are very difficult to refute if you are not prepared for them (which is why they usually work so well).
Through our research, we have identified 24 distinctly different attacks that are commonly used. It seems a bit daunting, because this is too many for most of us to memorize. But we have devised some simple, straightforward and easy-to-remember ways to understand and combat attacks.
Four tactics people use to attack good ideas
There are four underlying tactics for shooting down a leader’s suggested plan or proposal. Sometimes these tactics are used in combination. These are:
Delay. Your opponent makes a reasonable-sounding case that we should wait (just a bit) until some other project is done, or that we should send this back into committee (just to straighten up a few points), or (just) put off the activity until the next budget cycle. He may then divert attention to another legitimate, pressing issue: There’s the sudden budget shortfall, the unexpected announcement from a competitor, the growing problem here, the escalating conflict there. This attack works well most of the time, often causing an irreversible slow-down in getting the group’s buy-in.
Single Page View
