Over the course of a day, I constantly find myself wondering why things are the way they are or wishing that I could share my ideas on how I think things should/could be. The wealth of information and availability of social and collaboration environments on the internet typically provide me with eventual, if not immediate, satisfaction of these needs. In some cases, however, this satisfaction cannot be had, and that can be frustrating. While sometimes this is because the answers simply do not exist or that nobody is having a discussion on the topic, it is the times when the information/communication exists but is not shared that are the most frustrating. I tend to get a bad feeling about the parties involved in this exclusion.
The IT department I currently work in doesn’t provide a means to understand why things are the way they are. I’m a software developer. It is part of my nature to constantly question, to seek an understanding of how things work and why, and to look for ways to improve. There are several policies, processes and solutions in place in my organization, but I have a limited understanding why and a limited ability to question or participate (with the arguable exception of the subgroup I’m part of). Without any understanding of the needs driving the decision making behind these efforts, I have no inclination to endorse them, unless they are of clear benefit to me (not a common case). If I, an employee of the very organization driving the policy, can’t embrace it, I wonder what the perception is of our clients?
Jeff Kuhns observes that there are primarily three main causes of such resistance. Policies receive resistance because they are formulated with a:
– difficulty in thinking broadly.
- difficulty in thinking long term.
- the ambiguity of many words and phrases.
When reflecting on my own resistance to policy and mandated/provided solutions, it primarily falls into one or both of the top two categories. In particular, decisions generally seem to favor redundant, proprietary, vendor-driven solutions targeted at specific environments, put in place to solve problems I don’t necessarily have. Of course, this may not be the case at all, or may be driven by factors of which I am not aware. Without an exposure to the decision-making process, however, how can I do anything but remain skeptical?
Jeff continues on the importance of sharing in policy formulation:
The schools with the most success have developed a collaborative approach to discussing and resolving questions, and from that approach a sense of trust has developed among the people who must approve and follow policy. This often requires more time than some desire for any one policy but over time provides for a better and more efficient policy process.
I agree and would stress that the result is not only a more efficient policy process, but one that is more widely endorsed because more individuals have contributed to its success. People are more apt to participate when they are involved in the process. The cost of this involvement is far outweighed by the cost of resistance and ineffeciency when such involvement is not enabled and/or solicited.
