I
was doing a huge European bank event that was on Y2K. The CEO
was 28 years old. He was a delightful, fun, aggressive, and shy
person. When he did get to look you in the eye, he would be quite
forceful. His total staff was terrorized. In the sponsor meeting
he was making a lot of comments, some were offensive. Then I handed
him the pen and told him to put that up. I sat in his chair and
when he got about three words out, I said that that was the dumbest
thing I'd ever heard in my life. The people were terrified. He
just joked, "Well, all of my ideas were good." He was actually
quite fun and an egalitarian. He was not actually terrorizing,
but he had been interpreted that way. Slowly, through the rest
of the day and the event, the staff started pushing him. After
three days, they were engaging like a management team. I helped
them understand that you can do that with this person.
The
rules are: does it advance the agenda of this group to accomplish
the mission? Does it advance the generalized agenda of this environment?
This environment has a strong leaning toward egalitariananism,
creativity, group genius. This is a secondary agenda which can
be brought in with the primary agenda. I have not been in a group
where this was in conflict. For example, if a group was going
down a path of doing something entirely evil; in that context,
I would confront them.
For
example, I was working with the California Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce. They had looked around the world and asked why they
were always at the bottom of the social ladder. After Scan, they
had done a map of the Pacific Rim and realized that the majority
population was Hispanic and not Asian. They had walked in beat
down, but realized that they had enormous political power. The
women were the strong ones, and the men were either beat up or
macho. Suddenly, they were experiencing this enormous power. I
finally asked them if they would structure things differently
when they actually had power. Did they object to the structure
or just to the fact that they were on the bottom? If I had not
asked that question, they would just have used the facilitation
to get power in the same system. I do not know how that will eventually
come out. But the question was asked and worked. It is a profoundly
important question in our society.
Once
they have come to a conclusion, you have to let them go to closure
in the design process. The flaws will show better once it has
been engineered. Get it out in the world for feedback. I would
rather have a company with a flawed strategy and passion than
one with no passion. The objectivity in this context is making
those kinds of design judgments real time and working with it.
Sometimes a group will have a great idea but will not come to
closure. I will use the type of influence I have gathered and
push to closure. The agenda is we will do Scan Focus Act and go
to closure. All of this is a learning process.
The
real process is to find out where a group wants to go and help
with that. You have to use your credit card carefully. Less face
time is better. When you want to legitimately influence, you want
to do that strongly. People will tend to invest in the facilitator
a certain amount of authority. Part of the structure of the DesignShop
is that you start out with a structure and hand it off.
In
the Patchworks theory, people walk in and decide where they want
to go. The goal is the least amount of control and handing off
as soon as possible. You do not want to be trapped into being
the person necessary to be there to carry it forward.
You
have to play it and be willing to make mistakes. There have been
times I have failed to play something and I have regretted it.
There have been other times I have promoted a good idea and it
got worked out because people felt it was not their process. The
rules are simple, but the process is complex and dynamic.
000706.Matt
Taylor
