This is going to irk a lot of people.
They resort to consensus to shoot down proposals and ideas because they know that because of 'groupthink' any 'ideas not invented here' will go down the trashing floor.
They resort to consensus to look for unanimity. People will have a different opinion and perspective but it doesn't mean they need to be on your side all the time. Who has the real decision-making authority in this issue?
They resort to consensus when in fact the project needs a strong proponent, champion, and supporter. If the group will be the champion, no body is the real champion, proponent, and endorser.
They resort to consensus to free themselves from the real responsibility of taking a strong leadership when it is needed, hiding behind the guise of "collaboration, cooperation, buy-in" when in fact, there will be no buy-in when no one is absolutely championing it no matter what. People need to the passion, confidence, and commitment to the issue!
Consensus is so much abused these days. Learn to discern when to use it and not to use it or you are blocking opportunities and improvements through consensus.
Why is it that negative critics always dominate the conversation about a brand, company, organization, or product while the rest of the happy, satisfied, and loyal customers are not heard from?
According to a study done in Texas, negative feedback is 11th times likely to be dominant than positive, satisfied comment. This 11 dissatisfied people will then talk to at least 5 (average) other people about their dissatisfaction.
This goes to show that perception is malleable and can be shaped on the basis of who is doing what to whom. Word-of-mouth works if it's positive, it could be fatal if it's negative and totally based on misinformation and has the purpose to damage the reputation of your organization, brand, or products. To say, in this world we live, going viral- can be both a bane and a boon.
The lessons in corporate and management history suggest that we need to take a stock, monitor, evauate, and strategize how we are projecting ourselves out there, what kinds of things are being said about us, and how we can favorably turn those conversations to our favor and advantage.
This is not about propaganda or fake news, this is an honest-to-goodness management of public relations. If you can't control how you want to be perceived, some one will create it for you and that is the least comforting things as an idea.
When was the last time you heard from a delighted customer? Why don't you toot your own horn, and harvest your own successes and achievements. You are not making it up, there is social proof on every thing that you will declare out there. What is worst is that the deluge of uber-the-top negativity has been allowed to poison the minds of those who are just fence-sitters and observers? There is so much on the line here.
That has to stop and you can make concrete, tangible, and long-term commitment to making it work. If you can post your comments on Facebook and Twitter account everyday, you can do more on this area than just being passive and reactive.
The great Peter Drucker once said, " you have to feed on opportunities and starve problem-solving."
That is one great advice not heeded by a lot of organizations who is suffering from the monstrosity of the tyranny of everyday issues. They are mired and controlled by any movement that calls for their immediate and urgent attention. They found delight in solving any type of problem but did not develop, exercise, and maximize the opportunities around them, including the opportunities created by the so-called problems such as complaints, misinformation, bad publicity, ill-trained staff, overzealous volunteers, etc. The list can go on and on.
Are you bent down and worried on how to solve the next problem of your organization or are you satisfying the organization's search for opportunities? Are you defending yesterday's decisions in the altar of tomorrow's prospects? Are you spending more time fighting out fires or are you going out there and getting some long-term results?
A few years ago, I was a victim of the 'management by walking around' practice. Having been a staff myself, it confused me tremendously why management and executives have to do the rounds by walking around, pretending to be really curious and interested of personnel's work. What exactly can be derived by walking around the hall other than disturbing staff' precious time focused on real work and getting into chitchat with those that have nothing to do at the moment.
Visibility is good when there is a strategic purpose to visibility. Visibility alone is nothing.
Creating real genuine interpersonal relations is good but when it gets down to work, your boss is not your friend and vice-versa.
Also, this family vibe in many companies and organizations is also fake. This is not a family relation, this is business and you have a job to do and will get appraise at the next six-month mark.
There is a tremendous waste of monies and time on team building exercises meant to look like everyone is having a happy time, fetching water, building sand castles, catching people up when they fall, rappelling down ravines -all in the name of team work. There is no team work in that superficial encounters.
Real team work is about solving real problems and challenges as a team and experiencing satisfction from joint accomplishments.
He found me cutting some papers for my program activity for children. "This is work," I told him and he said, "good job," and turned around.
I had a former boss who always had to had a post-mortem examination of events, situations, and scenarios that transpired. With the 20/20 hindsight, you can diagnose so many things that have gone wrong with the purpose to improve it or avoid the more-than-once mistakes, errors, and miscalculations.
This is a great exercise and a good habit to have by executives and managers. No stones unturned. But the best managers and leaders start from a point of preventative rather than having to deal with a fall-out of a bad and terrible event. This is by asking the primarily question: what could have gone wrong in this situation and how can we mitigate the risks? bad weather, last minute cancellations, no-show speakers, bad sound system, missing presentations, etc., etc. The list can go on and on.
Preventative mindset is a proactive approach to ensuring that you have the opportunity to take control of the situation on your own terms, can redirect resources to mitigate them, and then of course, have contingency plans in case the preventative action fails.
In life and business, you can only assume that everything will be alright but that is not the case for reality. You always have to have a back-up plan. There is a great reason for that!
When you work in a bureaucratic organization, it is not about effectiveness, it is about putting more layers and layers of unnecessary tasks without an inch of value or input or significance to the process being performed.
I have seen how two to three clerks get to process one application. Two to three signatories needed in a report. Two to three supervisors to report to and other two to three combinations of divisions working on a special project.
It is not accountability. It is not engagement or participation. It is not even being rigorous or meticulous. It is not about quality at all.
It is bureaucracy in its finest. Waste of ludicrous amount of time, monies, energy, and management. Redundancy, overlaps, and inappropriate controls are enough to get a good employee frustrated and a good manager overworked. The next thing you know they are headed for the exit.
How many paper pushers are there in your organization? Can you count them?