Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [396]
Sometimes it is wise to prepare some “ammo” going into a discussion with the other party, especially if the buy-in effort takes place as a formal presentation to a group. One approach that might help is to remind the other party of the goal they are trying to achieve and examine whether this goal is fully met with their current mode of operation. If we succeed in making the other party realize that their goals are not met to the extent they would like them to, it means there is a problem—we overcame Layer 0. In other cases, we might consider using another approach to peel back this layer: We need to remind the other party of some significant undesirable effects that are caused both by the problem we are attempting to solve, and by the problem from which the other party suffers. Then we need to convince the other party of two things: First, that these effects do indeed exist, and second, that they are harmful (and thus undesirable). This discussion is not as painful to conduct as it may sound. That is, if we prepare for it. It is best to come up with four to seven undesirable effects that we must verbalize from the other party’s point of view. Remember, mirroring the other party’s terminology is key to getting buy-in. In order to demonstrate that these effects are part of our reality, we can use leading questions, numbers, or any other kind of “proof.” Most of the time this demonstration is sufficient because the undesirability of these effects speaks for itself. And if on occasion one or more of the undesirable effects are not intuitively perceived as negative, we can try to lead the other party through an “if…then” discussion until they realize that those effects are in fact negative.
Now, a word of caution: Let us think for a minute about those people we want on board. We probably need their permission or collaboration because they have some authority or responsibility in an area that is closely related to our change. It stands to reason, then, that if they have responsibility in an area related to the change, then they are also at least partially responsible for the problem we are trying to solve. So, it might be that they are well aware that there is a problem in the current situation, but they refuse to acknowledge it in public because they don’t want to be blamed for it. If this is the case, discussing different undesirable effects and demonstrating how harmful they are might give them the impression that we are blaming them for even more than they thought. It will be like pouring gas on a fire, causing them to resist us even more! That is why we have to be extra careful in the way we approach the other party and in our choice of words. How do we know whether they are ignoring the problem because they are unaware of it or because they don’t want to be blamed for it? If we listen well enough, we should know. Buy-in is as much about listening as it is about talking. But what if we are not sure? It is better in this case to play it safe and make very clear to the other side that no one is assigning blame, and all we want is to make things better for everyone.
Let’s assume we have peeled away Layer 0 and have gotten the other party to acknowledge that there is a problem. Where do we go from here? Again, we have to listen. If we hear something like, “I see we have a problem, but what exactly is it?