There is a summary at the end of the article.
In working with changes, no matter what they specifically relate to - whether it is a company development strategy, motivation systems, organizational structure or code design rules - there is always one key link: ideas. Ideas answer the question “what, in fact, are we going to change?”.
Ideas vary greatly in quality. There are spherical horses in a vacuum, which, even when realized, do not bring any at least some explainable benefit, and there are levers, which take seconds to press, and the result is visible in an hour.
However, today is not about ideas - let's talk about their authors. About dreamers.
I tried to make a certain classification based on personal experience. I do not pretend to complete the disclosure of the issue, because I myself am still young and green.
Naive romantics
These are those who offer world peace, only a unique high-quality code, a fundamental disregard for the products and services of Microsoft, Google and 1C (do not be offended that I put it in one sentence), share the wage fund equally, openly discuss the company's problems in a wide range, do exercises together in the morning, etc.
The key difference between naive romantics: sincere belief in their ideas. It is clear that sincerity cannot be checked for 100% - there are rogues who, even at the age of 20, can portray the necessary emotions in such a way that you cannot tell them apart.
But it can be judged by indirect signs. First and foremost: they are terribly offended if their idea is criticized. The second follows the first: they will start a war "against the system."
Indeed, how can one criticize the idea of world peace or only a unique quality code? Who would even dare to object to such ideas? Only all sorts of ghouls who have something to hide, who pursue their own selfish interests and do not think about the common good.
I’ll make a reservation before it’s too late: I’m writing all this without irony, tk. he himself was a naive romantic. Maybe I'm staying now, I just don't notice it myself.
Any arguments against the ideas of naive romantics will be ignored and smashed to smithereens by the obvious correctness of their utopia. Do you have something against unique quality code? Throwing in development costs that, with some kind of fright, should be lower than the income generated by the product? Do you want to use other people's modules, developments or entire frameworks? Well, who are you after that?
The ideas of naive romantics are large-scale and unrealizable. Their scale, however, is stereotyped, therefore it does not cause either delight, or admiration for the author, or the desire to implement these ideas. Roughly speaking, all naive romantics offer plus/minus the same thing. Their ideas are unrealizable in a specific context - we all understand that there is no particular sense in evaluating the feasibility of an idea “in principle”, this should be done only in relation to the “locality”.
What to do: do not openly criticize, include changes in the team, in rare cases (for especially annoying romantics) - let them steer.
Realists
The most common type of dreamers. Although, you can’t call them dreamers either - rather, workhorses. But, nevertheless, ideas are offered, so they got into the classification.
Lay a rug in front of the shop to keep you from falling in winter, hang paper towels in the toilet instead of (or together with) a slow dryer, print invoices on purple paper so that the accounting department of a large buyer pays more attention to them, hire a cleaning company to clean the office if it's cheaper , etc.
Simple, understandable, easily implemented ideas that immediately bring even a small but tangible benefit. No scale, but the maximum hit in the context, in the area for which the idea is thought out.
With the right approach to organizing changes, you can, in principle, build a good chain of such improvements. The main thing is that you won’t be left without pants, because. these guys do not aim at large-scale, and therefore expensive transformations.
Sometimes realists hit the jackpot. They offer some, in their opinion, a trifle that solves a small local problem, and someone with a broader outlook sees that the topic is real, capable of bringing significant benefits. True, the original idea in this case requires modification, which is no longer carried out by a realist, and, accordingly, the authorship of the final idea floats to another person.
There are cases of turning a realist into a drug addict (see below), if you overly encourage, exalt ideas and their implementation.
What to do: do not interfere, but look after him so that he does not become a drug addict, include in the change team.
Drug addicts
This is a severe case, but fortunately it is rare. If you remember the film “Office Romance”, then there was Shurochka, who was once promoted to public work, and since then they have not been able to push back. If you replace “community work” with “change”, you get the same drug addict.
A drug addict is a person who has been too often trusted to carry out his own ideas. Just as Shurochka understood the benefits of social work over routine work, so drug addicts understand the value of change compared to the routine performance of their own duties (whatever they were before the development of withdrawal).
Unfortunately, dependence on changes is formed very quickly. Sometimes it is enough for a person to propose, implement and receive excessive praise for 2-3 ideas for him to become an addict.
The key condition is praise, especially in front of all the honest people. What is the difference between such praise? You can't take her back. You won’t be able to come out in six months and say: this, guys, I told you here that Shurochka is good and well done - so, in short, I changed my mind, she is a stupid fool. This is a political issue, and such recognition will only strengthen, on the one hand, Shurochka's authority, and on the other hand, turn the leader into a satrap who destroys young talents for the sake of his own interests. God forbid, this is also naive romantics will hear.
Drug addicts start, I'm sorry, to shit the whole company. They carry their ideas from top to bottom.
Colleagues and subordinates are told about their new ideas, they demand recognition and respect, “I care about you idiots” (remember how Shurochka shouted “I also got tickets to the camp for his children!”), sometimes they just don’t give work normally, because want to stand around during the day, “take a photo”, find new opportunities for improvement, etc.
The superiors simply take out the brain. They write letters, ask for meetings, catch them in the corridors and even in the toilet, speak at all meetings (including corporate parties), join in any non-working movement.
Advanced drug addicts are trying to legitimize their status. This is how change directors, quality and business process departments, change coordinating headquarters, quality circles and other departments with inexplicable functions appear. Over time, those who are completely advanced understand that they are tired of everyone, like a bitter radish, and are retrained as steam locomotives (see below).
And all for what? For praise. And since its quality decreases, it has to be compensated by quantity. If earlier one idea was praised so that tears of joy flowed from the eyes, now you need to write two dozen sentences to “OK, thank you.” earn.
What to do: praise in doses, and better - privately, notice the beginning of drug addiction in time, in no case give power, try to return to the previous, usual place of work, in extreme cases - expel.
Steam locomotives
Even worse than drug addicts. They are better known to you as "effective managers".
Think for yourself where a steam locomotive can go, for example, from the Chelyabinsk railway station? In principle, there are many directions - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Zlatoust, Chebarkul, and even Vladivostok. But it will not reach the airport, as well as to Washington, Davletbaevo or Kuluyevo.
We translate into the language of change. A locomotive man can offer and implement Scrum, Lean, TOC, functional cost analysis, category purchase, DevOps, ISO, CRM system (“as I had at my last job, it’s normal, I just forgot the name”), KPI (“ I’ll look at home, there was a file with indicators”), etc. But a steam locomotive will not be able to cross Scrum and TOC if someone has not done this before.
The ideas of a steam locomotive can hardly be called ideas, in this sense it looks like a naive romantic, but much worse. With a romantic, everything is immediately clear - the idea is beautiful, but utopian, but here - it seems like it’s not there, and there are some good examples, and there are books, and instructions, and, most importantly, crowds of information gypsies living at all major stations. The locomotive will not have time to slow down at the platform, when the ai-nane-nane is filled.
If the locomotive has no power, then do not care. It does not help, and does not interfere - let him tell his friends in the smoking room how great it would be to work on SAF. In five minutes, everyone will forget what this abbreviation means.
But if there is power, then write wasted. The other day, a wild wind brought me to a children's clinic, I saw with my own eyes what a thrifty hospital is - it's time to write a sequel . It is immediately clear that the locomotive has ridden in all its beautiful, unrestrained, terrible, but such senseless power.
The realizability of the ideas of a steam locomotive is of little concern if it has power. In general, he has a poor idea of what realizability, context, and environment are. Resources - yes, he knows. Especially if there is an opportunity to steer these resources.
The main difference between a steam locomotive: it does not care at all about the benefits of changes. Not because he's bad. It's just that he was never told that there should be benefits from the changes. He was told that there must be changes.
What to do: give / expand power only after confirming the benefits of changes in a limited context, never take his word for predicting the success of changes, do not immediately take locomotives to a high position, always carefully monitor his work.
Revolutionaries
These are harmless, in essence, creatures, if they are treated correctly - either in no way, or with humor.
The key difference between their ideas is that they are always directed against the system, the mainstream, the general direction of the company, team, country, etc.
This is not exactly a difference, but rather a goal. Here they come up with ideas just such that they differ from the current course by 180 degrees.
They are somewhat reminiscent of naive romantics, sometimes even ideas sound the same. But the revolutionaries are always against the system.
This is their life credo, personal choice, a prerequisite, a need. In Maslow's pyramid, there is this - the need for belonging. Most people want to belong to some social group, and most want to belong to the majority. The revolutionaries also want to, but to the minority.
I had one such acquaintance, a revolutionary. In each specific moment, if you look at it, everything seemed logical and explainable - yes, the ideas are correct, well done guy. But, knowing the history of the development of these ideas, it is impossible to look at them without smiling.
He always wanted to be not for something, but against something. For the sake of this, he was ready to be for something. For example, there was a time - he was fond of Navalny, considering him a true patriot (and himself at the same time, of course). Who hated - understandable.
Then I read some information that Navalny was an American spy. That's it, love has passed, the tomatoes have withered. But a holy place is never empty, a new revolutionary idea is needed. The dude did not think for a long time, saved himself time, and chose Putin - now he considered him a true patriot.
And, most importantly, it was necessary to hate the same ones - officials, deputies, etc. They are always bad, both under Navalny and under Putin.
Likewise with all other areas of life. Everyone eats pizza and sausages, the revolutionary is fond of healthy eating according to Shatalova. Everyone is starting to think about healthy eating - the dude starts skewers. Everyone is trying to buy foreign cars, the revolutionary deliberately buys a Chevy Niva (although he has enough money for a foreign car, and he knows exactly how low the quality of domestic auto components is, because we spent a lot of time together at the factory for their production).
What to do: bring them into a constructive field, including changes in the team, do not provoke or encourage, let them calmly have fun with revolutionary ideas, bring them to a psychotherapist.
Ravens
Crows are those who croak, and then ... Nothing. They just croak.
These are all commentators of articles who begin their thoughts with the words “the author needs ...”, “my advice to you is ...”, or “it’s not necessary, but like this ...”. These are all employees who shout out ideas at meetings from the spot, and when they are asked to stand up and repeat, they are silent and laugh it off. This is everyone who offers ideas for others, not wanting to participate in the implementation or confirm them with their experience.
In short, these are people who give ideas just for the sake of giving them, but do not bear any responsibility, not only for the implementation, but even for the idea itself. They know that no one will take their ideas seriously, so they don’t even worry about their quality.
Old crows go even further - they deliberately make their ideas such that they will not be accepted, or even considered. The idea was not accepted, but the fact of its issuance to the world remains, which means that the crow is well done.
Crows control the feasibility and scale of ideas, but in a specific way: they try to make the idea as small as possible and as large as possible. Of all the types of dreamers, crows are the only ones who do this.
The purpose of the crow is to croak. All. Here she is croaking. Loud and offended - this is important. Everyone should know that the crow is great, it generates a lot of ideas, but no one wants to consider them. Therefore, the crow is offended, and continues to croak louder and louder. So far, unfortunately, they don’t knock her out of a slingshot - just so that she doesn’t croak.
If you look closely, you will notice a lot of crows around, especially in politics, especially among those who are in opposition (I don’t mean anyone in particular, seriously).
What to do: include in the change team, or give power to a limited area, or expel.
rogues
These are difficult. Their ideas can be both large-scale and small, but they are always realizable and purely practical. True, only for them.
Slickers only offer ideas whose implementation serves either them personally or their groups (team, department, village). Even if it seems that the idea serves the common good, do not hesitate - just a swindler got burned, and managed to present everything in such a way that no one would guess about his true intentions.
To be honest, I don't know how to treat rogues. As long as he offers ideas that serve him personally, there are no questions - you have to refuse. But when a rogue takes on improvements for the benefit of, for example, the team, there is no clear answer.
It is especially disgusting when the idea of a rogue does not directly interfere with other teams. It doesn't hinder, but it doesn't help either. And his team - wow. Other teams get an indirect effect - they automatically get a little worse due to the fact that the rogue's team got better.
Rogues create internal competition in the company. Everyone works the way they work, sometimes they say something at general meetings - they either croak, or offer something revolutionary, or save the world, and the rogue slips a small, meaningless offer, like buying a scrum board, access to changing the accounting system (“we’ll tweak it a little for ourselves to make it more convenient”), several thousand rubles a month for a good paid task manager, a small bonus fund for our department, etc. It seems like a trifle, but - only for the swindler and his department.
Quietly, gradually, imperceptibly, but the rogue does his job. Like a hamster, it drags into the house everything that lies badly - but, in a good way. He improves only the group to which he belongs, or better, which he leads.
What to do: make the most of it, expand the group that includes the swindler, preferably to the scale of the entire company.
Unattainable
Well, the coolest type of visionaries are unattainable. I don't know what better to call them. These are people who combine the best of almost all other categories.
From naive romantics, they take the scale of ideas. From realists - the maximum possible consideration of context and resources. From drug addicts - a constant desire, only not for imaginary, but for real perfection. From locomotives - constancy in achieving the goal and taking into account the best practices. From revolutionaries - fearlessness to the movement against the mainstream. From swindlers - the desire for the good, but not limited, but the widest possible group. Only from the crows do not take anything.
The Unattainable are changing the world, creating innovations admired, envied, imitated for decades.
The key difference between the unattainable: they succeed. Or rather, they succeeded. Only a positive result, a large-scale, romantic, sometimes utopian idea realized, makes a dreamer unattainable.
Hundreds of thousands, millions of startups, solo developers, indie musicians, line managers with fire in their eyes, oppositionists with cool ideas are not unattainable. Until they realize their ideas.
From the outside, for contemporaries, it almost always looks like a miracle. It’s like everyone is sitting, doing about the same thing, and then a dude appears who makes a breakthrough. It changes the market, no matter what, and now no one works in the old way. To subsequent generations, of course, the unattainable no longer seems so - a bunch of analysts write hundreds of articles and books where the secret of success is chewed.
But the comprehensibility of the success of the unattainable does not make it repeatable, and the unattainable remains so. The success of each unattainable is unique, so there is no point in comparing them. Although, many are trying to bring out the very “secret of success”.
Well, I'll try, in the context of the material of the article. The secret is simple, really.
The first point is a large-scale idea, like naive romantics. One that takes the soul, motivates, makes yourself want.
The second point is feasibility, at least in principle, by the forces of the dreamer himself and the available circle of people. The idea should be both large-scale and implementable - namely AND, not OR or XOR. And feasibility is assessed only in the context of the current situation and its possible development.
The third point is the willingness to independently implement the idea. It is clear that not everything is straight with your own hands, but the main responsibility lies with the dreamer himself. People along the way will appear, disappear, be inspired and disappointed, and the dreamer must be adamant. Well, constantly reevaluate the context, moving forward flexibly, understanding the current situation and forecasts of its change.
Well, the fourth point is taking into account the interests of the group that is engaged in the implementation. Like a swindler. It is not necessarily about financial interests, goals can be different, but a dreamer should not think only about himself and his dream.
Perhaps everything. I think I, like other authors of the "secret to the success of great people", turned out to be unimaginable nonsense. This is what the “secrets of success” are good for - everything seems to be clear, but what to do - you will understand the hell.
What to do: nothing, such people do not appear next to us.
What to do with each specific category of dreamers, I outlined briefly, but in the next article I will tell you in more detail and with examples.
Summary
In working with change, the first step is to get ideas - what, in fact, can and should be done to achieve the goal.
Ideas are given by people, but they are not homogeneous. I will give a brief classification based on my own experience.
Naive romantics - offer ideas like world peace. They get offended if their ideas are criticized. The scale of ideas is large. Realizability - none. What to do: do not openly criticize, include changes in the team, in rare cases (for especially annoying romantics) - let them steer.
Realists themselves propose, they themselves implement small ideas that fit exactly into the context and resources. The scale is small, the feasibility is high. What to do: do not interfere, but look after him so that he does not become a drug addict, include in the change team.
Drug addicts are people who are addicted to generating ideas. Very toxic. The scale of ideas is very different. Realizability is also different, but drug addicts are not interested in it. Only the fact of generating an idea and praise for it. What to do: praise in doses, and better - privately, notice the beginning of drug addiction in time, in no case give power, try to return to the previous, usual place of work, in extreme cases - expel.
Steam locomotives - offer standard ideas, such as the introduction of popular techniques. The scope of ideas can be wide. Realizability can be quite normal. But usually no benefit. What to do: give / expand power only after confirming the benefits of changes in a limited context, never take his word for predicting the success of changes, do not immediately take locomotives to a high position, always carefully monitor his work.
Revolutionaries - offer only ideas that are contrary to the "official" course, whatever it may be. If the "official" course changes diametrically, the ideas of the revolutionaries also change diametrically. The scale of ideas is different. Realizability is usually non-existent. What to do: bring them into a constructive field, including changes in the team, do not provoke or encourage, let them calmly have fun with revolutionary ideas, bring them to a psychotherapist.
Ravens are people who offer ideas that no one will implement for sure. That's why they offer. They specifically offer ideas that no one will bother with. What to do: include in the change team, or give power to a limited area, or expel.
Rogues - offer only ideas that serve the benefit of their personal or group. The scale is different, the realizability is high. What to do: make the most of it, expand the group that includes the swindler, preferably to the scale of the entire company.
Unattainable - people who change the world. Ideas are large-scale and realizable, and this becomes known only after the fact. At the very beginning, they are laughed at. What to do: nothing, such people do not appear next to us.
Source: habr.com