There is a great article in Indianapolis Star yesterday, highlighting a pilot project in Indianapolis in which all hospital systems are screening for MRSA in their ICUs and work with staff to improve hand hygiene and compliance to isolation precautions. Heading this 18-month project is Dr.Brad Doebbeling researcher from the Indiana University School of Medicine and whom we are also working with in our work against MRSA.
One of the really neat things about this particular initiative is the focus on staff involvement in the implementation. When asked about the declining infection rates at a participating site, St.Francis Hospital and Health Centers, the manager of infection control mentioned that getting staff input in the process of planning and implementation of the measures is a major component of its success. But what makes me feel uncomfortable was when she used the words "staff buy-in" to describe this engagement. Am I too picky about this? Maybe, but is it buy-in? or is it something else a little bit more....? So here is the origin of this confusion. I found a great piece written by Henri Lipmanowicz, Plexus board chairman and a PD coach, about this exact thing: And then to see why he is quite an authority in this area, click here.
I think it is very, very important to make a clear distinction between buy-in and ownership and not present them as if they were the same or interchangeable. It is important because buy-in is what everybody talks about and it more often than not doesn’t work precisely because it is the opposite of ownership.
Ownership is when you own or share the ownership of an idea, a decision, an action plan, a choice; it means that you have participated in its development, that it is your choice freely made.
Buy-in is the opposite: someone else or some group of people has done the development, the thinking, the cooking and now they have to convince you to come along and implement their idea without you having been invited at the table upfront before the goose was cooked. They decided without you but now they need your buy-in because without you their great ideas and plans can’t get implemented and so are worth nothing. But since you were not part of the process this great idea is a strange one; you cannot fully understand its history or genesis. Since you were not part of the process you cannot be aware of all the other options that were considered and rejected, and of the thinking that went into these choices. You feel ignored, imposed upon, pushed around, unappreciated and your immune system naturally kicks in to reject this foreign idea. You will look like you agree eventually to this new idea because you have no choice and your masters will cheer believing that you have bought in and that you are now as convinced as they are. Your implementation will inevitably be a pale imitation of what it could have been had you been an owner instead of a “buyer-in” and be truly convinced.
What is wrong with buy-in is the notion that it is perfectly ok for a few to make the decisions and then to impose them on all the others and still expect that they will be willing and able to implement them perfectly as if they had made the decisions themselves. That is a total illusion. It is an illusion that exists because in most organizations there is no evidence showing the difference between what people can accomplish when they implement ideas they developed together versus what happens when they implement ideas that were imposed on them.
Most organizations have no clue about the value of true enthusiasm and true commitment because they have never seen it. And the reason they have never seen it is because they have never created conditions for people to implement ideas they own without reservations. When experts are working very hard at making plans for others (those they consider non-experts) to execute, it is impossible for them to consider, and least of all admit, that enthusiasm and deep understanding by those others (inferior non-experts) could double or triple the impact of their expert ideas. That obviously would defeat their value as experts!!!
Deep understanding can only be achieved by making oneself the journey of discovery and invention. Someone else’s story of the journey will always be a pale imitation of the experience.
If leaders involved UPFRONT all the people that will be involved later on in the implementation there would be no need for buy-in for the simple reason that there would be ownership.
Of course the immediate reaction to such a proposition is that it is ludicrous because it is obviously impossible to involve everybody upfront. Wrong!!! Since it is possible to involve all the people afterwards, it has to be possible to involve them all upfront. And therefore the proper question is not whether but how. There are ways and processes from which to choose depending on the circumstances.
Hence my message is: ANYTIME YOU OR SOMEONE AROUND YOU THINKS OR TALKS ABOUT BUY-IN BEWARE! It is a danger signal telling you that your development and implementation process is missing the essential ingredient of involving all who should be. Reconsider your process before you waste a lot of time and energy or achieve mediocre results. One key is to not separate the development of ideas from the implementation of ideas: the same people should be involved in both and it should be one single integrated process.
To conclude, trying to achieve buy-in is most often an attempt to compensate for a problem that should not have been created in the first place, namely the exclusion of all the people whose buy-in is now being sought from the development process. It is a little bit like the need to motivate people; more often than not it is a sign that the real problem is to avoid de-motivating them in the first place.
I have of course oversimplified and exaggerated in order to make my point sharper. Some disagreement and debate around situations when what I wrote doesn’t apply should help in making the whole distinction between buy-in and ownership clearer.
No comments:
Post a Comment