All of us belong to and take part in organizations and groups where teaching participants the Breakthrough Thinking or Smart Questions concepts is not possible - restricted amount of time, the people do not think about thinking, you are only in an advisory position, and so on.
As a member of the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission, I am almost always in this position when evaluating proposals for funding from the Productivity Investment Board. A proposal last week sought $250,000 to hire consultants to tell the department what software/hardware would be needed to develop statistics and trends from a large number of different databases in many different County Departments.
The proposal listed the types of data available in the different databases and the different departments where they existed. However, there was no specificity about the requirements for or types of statistics and trends being sought. In other words, no requirements or key parameters were thought through. Just give us the money and we're bound to come up with great information.
I could have stated these negative comments and put the proposal on a non-approval path. In some ways, I perceived that there could be value created for the many departments if such a collective database were available. Since several proposals were on the agenda to be evaluated, there was no time to explain that I was about to use SQ/BT. All I did was to ask questions anout what purposes the consolidated database would achieve, what outcomes/departmental requirements would expected, what measurable benefits might accrue, and how the collaborating departments were going to proceed to accomplish all that.
The proposers said they would report back with as much of this information as possible prior to the full Commission review in three weeks.
This committee activity repeats many such situations in my experience. Using BT/SQ in all your activities even without orienting the groups can be your hidden competitive and leadership advantage and vehicle for personal career development.
Please add any of your similar experiences.
Gerry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is an great example of what happens in organisations of all types. The bigger the organisation, the more likely it is that people will assume, consciously or unconsciously, that "someone else has thought this true". I look forward to seeing the difference that purposeful information will make.
I wish I could give some solid examples of similar projects. Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity.
However, I frequently use a purposes hierarchy in my coaching practice. It works so well when you ask someone, "what are you really trying to accomplish here?" and "what purpose does that serve?" It is amazing how people will think through those questions and carefully review their plan.
I recently used this with a guy who had to develop his departmental strategy for the first time. It really helped him focus on what was most critical to his success. The interesting thing was that he asked his boss what her purposes were...and shaped his plans accordingly. He was previosly uncertain as to whether he could sell his somewhat ambitious plans. He was amazed as to how successfully he was able to do so.
Now he has to worry about execution. We are working on those tactics now.
George
Post a Comment