You may want to check out http://www.GoalsOnTrack.com, a very nicely built web app designed for tracking goals and todo lists, and supports time tracking too. It’s clear, focused, easy to navigate, worth a try.

Change Management

I hope others pick up on your desire to hear about blueprints for ideas and innovation. And I hope others will pick up on your question about what makes for a “fantastic idea.” (And my question: who gets to decide that an idea is fantastic?

To your first point, I think that the introversion-extroversion difference is important. But, I think that fear and power also play a huge role in keeping ideas under wraps. Fear of ridicule, punishment, making the boss look bad, etc. etc.

Rick

Thanks for sharing the article from Jena McGregor and the results of the study by Nicholas Kohn and Steven Smith. Its all about timing isn’t it?
I would gather, that introvertet people would prefere thinking on its own and estrovertet people would enjoy the energy from others, when they have to perform “creative thinking”. But – suffering from beeing introvertet myself – I offen come up with great ideas (that is – I think it is a great idea … – but when others listen to it – it needs a little help and they typically qualify the idea and make it better. But if I was to sit with others and generate ideas, I would’t think at all.
So what is this article about? Is it about how to increase the quality of ideas? Or is it about how to orchestrate the “idea-generating-proces”?
I’m sure its a huge advantage for the proces, if it is conducted in the “Separately-Together-Separately-Management-Model”. 1)First think on your own. 2)Then diskuss each idea – pros and cons. 3)Then think again on your own and make your recommendations to the board Chairman, 4)who then have the power, obligation and wisdom to execute the right decisions. (thats why we pay then so much).
I wonder if there is any specifics as to how they (Nicholas Kohn and Steven Smith) went on messuring the quality of the brainstorms and the ideas. The article says “…both with the number of ideas and the diversity of them…”, but volume and diversity can not be the only interresting and importent elements as to brand the quality af the idea-generating-proces. What are the most importent criterias an idea must meet, in order to get the grade “Fantastick Idea”? Any ideas?
It took me some time to understand, that in order to innovate, not only the idea must be great – The idea also needs the compagnionship of a “master change agent” in order to transform the “idea-generation” into “Innovation”. I cant help thinking about all the great ideas, that never came alive thanks to poor corporate “idea-management”.
So…Does anyone of all you great changemanagers out there have the blueprint to a perfect “Idea & Innovation Proces” where both customers, employees and vendors together feed, finance and form ideas for the future? Please share
By the way – Don Thoren – Great idea – I will copy and paste rigth away
Happy tuesday.

I’m guilty of overusing Brainstorming in groups, and reflecting on your blog and the article from the Post, I can see how often it hasn’t achieved the desired results. I’ve created a workshop using the process of Creative Problem Solving as a framework, and I’ll admit to including brainstorming to generate the issues as part of the CPS process. There are so many tools and techniques at our disposal as change agents, and I know it can be easier to use what “has worked” without taking time to think about other alternatives (and creating a deeper knowledge base for ourselves at the same time!

Thanks for the reminder.

This corresponds precisely with our experience also. To this end, we now use a technique called “brain writing” that is a silent form of brainstorming done by each individual in semi-isolation from the group. There are ideas coming from others but in a silent and non-threatening way. Each idea is anonymous in its delivery so there is no intimidation from “higher ups” or the “group think” one typically sees in a group dynamic.

Great topic!

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I like what you have to say. And, even with a background in OD, I agree with command and control the way in which you define it.

As a change lead on ERP projects, I can concur with much of what you say. I especially appreciate your suggestion that true change leadership is more than giving a presentation or sending out a newsletter. It is about making sure the right people know they need to carve out time in their schedule to participate as assigned, whether that is application design, set up, configuration, testing, or training. I often ask client leaders to work with supervisors of designated resources to ensure calendars are clear and that a priority is set. So far that seems to work out well. As Kotter says, “Build Powerful Coalitions”.

Lastly, I must say the organizations that seem to change the most effectively are organizations with the best leaders. To clarify, I will use a phrase that may surprise most organization development consultants, but when it comes to implementing a new system the organizations with the best “command and control” get the job done on time, within budget, and with the fastest ramp up after Go Live. Now this “command and control” may sound like a military organization but it really means that the leaders know their people, the people trust their leaders, priorities are clear, and the work gets done. So, when I meet with an organization with a less than stellar leadership team, I know we are in for a challenge.

Again, thanks Rick for a great post!

Thanks Rick.

When I’ve been in spaces that try to increase “positive thinking” by suppressing so called “negative thinking” it drives me batty.

Several colleagues on an intact team sat through a workshop last year where the trainer told them that their “negative thinking” wouldn’t get good results. Not exactly an appreciative approach from a trainer trying to teach positivity. The problem is, this team had gotten some great results from focusing on problems. The trainer couldn’t see this and it undermined her ability to support the team in strengthening itself.

The team she was training worked with a community facing issues of environmental contamination in their neighborhoods and lack of basic infrastructure (little clean water, food, fire or medical services). When those on the team tried to raise issues at the large system level (like policies and practices that adversely impacted their community, such as accepted dumping of toxic waste) it was frowned upon because it was “so negative.”

The whole team left the workshop determined not to adopt the trainers approach. Instead, to their credit, they recognized the difference between valuing a strength-based or asset-based approach (apposed to a deficit-based approach) and blinding “positivity.”