You don't have to read the whole text - there is a summary at the end. It's me who cares about you, because I'm good.
I discovered one remarkable thing a long time ago and I use it successfully. But I am haunted by her ... How should I say it ... The moral side, or something. Too perishing thing hooligan.
Everything would be fine - you never know in the world of hooligan things. But this one is painfully effective. I can't resist the temptation to take advantage when the right opportunity presents itself.
Once upon a time, I worked as an IT director, and they forced me to write either a regulation on the department, or a strategy - I don’t remember what this piece of paper was called. It was checked by fierce bureaucrats, but they missed one phrase, and it contained the quintessence of this thing.
It sounded like this. If an IT Customer wants to make a mistake, IT will tell them so. If the Customer insists on making a mistake, then the IT department will be happy to help him with this.
It so happened that at the enterprise where I worked, the leading personnel often changed. Five directors, five or six chief accountants, several heads of supply, production and sales. All of them, sooner or later, turned to me for automation. With the first of them, history developed according to the standard scenario.
Standard Scenario
Just imagine - there is an IT director and there is a chief accountant. Let's say they're fine. Automation is done at the proper level, the volume of manual operations is quite satisfactory, there is no staff expansion, there are no rush jobs. Everything is transparent, understandable and controllable. Almost all the work is done by the accountants themselves, programmers are involved only in the case of "listen, why did she become a victim of self-blocking, please look ...".
And then bam - and the chief accountant changes, for some political reasons. Often - along with a change of director. A new aunt comes and starts to download rights. I, he says, is the chief accountant, and you are a programmer. I say you do.
Well, I’m trying to explain there - they say, look, everything is already set up, don’t touch anything, and you will be happy. No, give her a revolution in accounting. It is imperative to redo everything, reconfigure everything, and, most importantly, that her name should be on the title page of the list of changes.
I, of course, defend what was created earlier. Like, everything is fine, everything works, everything is clear and predictable. Evolving is great, and it needs to be done. But to break everything for the sake of personal career interests is not development. I quote the costs, how much it cost us, and how much a new remodeling project will cost. And most importantly - the result will be exactly the same.
In short, I argue and prove, from the bottom of my heart, wishing the good of my native company. What is the result? How does this situation look when viewed from a third person?
One person proposes changes. The second one resists. No more, no less.
The problem was aggravated by the fact that, as I mentioned above, the chief accountant came along with the new director. Even if there were people in the conversations who knew the history and were able to confirm my words, they did not. Well, more precisely, they nodded their heads - but they nodded to me and to them. Both sides agreed. At the same time, according to the laws of mathematics, no one was given an advantage.
In general, in the end, I always remained extreme. I do not want changes, I hold on to the old, I am inert, I only think about myself, I just want to argue and show myself, I am on the path of progress.
I, if in general, am not a fool, therefore I do not resist indefinitely. In the end, I say: okay, be your way. I disagree, but I will do as you say. I will be "gloomy and angry, but I walked."
The story always ends the same way. Important: it always ended the same way. Always.
If not always, I would not have noticed the repeatability of the scenario.
Well, the story always ends the same way. We did as the new chief accountant (or any other boss) asked. Sometimes they reached the end, sometimes they stopped in the middle. But they always made sure that I was right and he was wrong.
In the beginning, we threw out, stopped using some of the tools and processes. At the end, we threw out everything that we did during the “reforms”, and included back what was before the start of the “reforms”.
It got ridiculous. There was a process and automation of warehouse accounting, which consistently brought the required result. Each new chief accountant furiously attacked this system. She was turned off. Differences crept up right there. Turned back on. The chief accountant furiously argued that the system is fire, and there is no life without it.
And we became friends, just like with the previous chief accountant, head of supply, production, sales, etc.
After observing this picture and noticing its repetition, I decided to experiment.
Angry bear
So, on the threshold stood another chief accountant. I used to lament - my legs in my mouth, again through all this devilry to go through. Now I was delighted, and immediately, point-blank asked - what kind of revolutionary transformations will you carry out? Well, she came up with her plan.
I thought: what for I will resist, prove, if the result, in any case, will be the same? If I argue, we will do it anyway, only I will once again be branded as an opponent of change. If, hypothetically, we do it in my opinion, i.e. We won’t change anything, then I don’t get any exhaust at all.
I decided not to resist, but to support and help. But with a small caveat: at a meeting with the owner and director, he casually mentioned that I consider the transformations inappropriate. But I'm happy to help make them happen. I thought they wouldn't pay attention. How.
They began to ask - what kind of crap is this? Why do not agree, but will do, and even with joy? Well, I started to weave something again about the fact that we went through all this, and the result is known in advance, and there will be zero sense, anyway we will return to the old system. But I don't want to waste any more time arguing. I will help the new leader to make sure that he is wrong.
He, of course, blushed like a cancer, and again showered curses on me, the most harmless of which was “who do you think you are, *****?”. No one, I say, did not imagine. I just want to help you, dear friend.
In short, the chief accountant remained angry, but continued to insist on his plan. The director supported his chief accountant, but not as fiercely as the previous ones did. The owner openly and with a smile remained neutral. I want to see what happens, he says.
The result was strange. First, of course, the changes failed, as in previous iterations. But the main thing is that the chief accountant was fired for this.
Previously, they were fired later, when we had already managed to make friends, and for reasons not related to me. And here, specifically, they fired me for suggesting some kind of heresy, spent a lot of time and money, and eventually returned to the old system. Moreover, "it was said."
I was in total shock. I fell ill with depression for a couple of days - I don’t like layoffs, in principle. And here, like, because of me. But then nothing, walked away. And he began to render disservices again.
I find it difficult to say exactly how many people were fired in this way. But there were several of them, from different departments and services. And always in the same scenario.
The script is simple. A person comes to the position and proposes changes related to automation or processes (i.e. my area of responsibility). They ask my opinion. I'm saying that the changes are wrong and, at best, they won't do any harm. And I always add: but I will be happy to help implement them. The new man falls into a stupor, but he can no longer back down. We make changes, they fire him.
At first it was cool. Then I got scared.
Kind bear
Once I read about the concept of fail fast, fail cheap (fail fast, fail cheap). The essence is simple: it is not necessary to start colossal changes, but to put forward hypotheses and quickly test them, without spending a lot of money and time. If the hypothesis turns out to be wrong, then this will be known quickly, and no one will suffer much.
And then the case turned up. A new chief of supply came and suggested changes. He was the first who thought to come to me personally, and not to hold a meeting with the director and the owner.
Well, I gave him the same tirade - that he offers shit, and not a damn thing will come of it. I thought that now he would run to complain. And he sits and does not go anywhere. Come on, he says, let's think of something.
Here I remembered fail fast, fail cheap. Come on, I say, let's test your hypothesis on a local site. He was downright happy. They took one girl from all his employees, changed the process for her, automated it a bit, observed it for a couple of weeks. Most importantly, no one was told, except for this girl.
The result was expected - the changes did not bring the effect expected by the new boss. But another result was completely unexpected for me - this guy immediately became my friend. Especially after I told him about the path followed by all his predecessors. Well, we kind of started synergy.
It also ended, and the dude was kicked out. But he was the first to be kicked out, not for bad results, but for very prosaic personal reasons.
Then a similar incident happened with the new director. There were difficulties with the position of production manager, and he decided to bring his man. He asked to evaluate the candidate and, in general, to express his opinion. Without looking at the candidate, I say - you won’t succeed, because the reason is not in this position, but in its environment. As long as the environment, related processes work the way they work, no person will stay long in this position.
The conversation was tête-à-tête again. The director listened to me, smiled, and said that he would do it his own way. I smiled back, shrugged my shoulders and left.
Four months later, when he himself kicked out this head of production, he called me and told me about the reasons. I recalled our previous conversation, he nodded and said he remembered. And solemnly puts a tick "you were right." We began to discuss changes in the environment surrounding the head of production. Yes, and they became friends - well, as far as possible.
It turned out to be a kind disservice. The only difference from the evil one is that there are no third parties. Otherwise, everything is one to one: a new person comes, proposes changes, I say that nothing will work, but I will be happy to help, I help, nothing works.
Yes, the result is also different. An evil disservice results in a person being fired. Kind - makes a person your friend.
Bear provocateur
It's totally a bomb. Works not with newcomers, but with old employees. So powerful that I'm already scared.
The script is simple. We are looking for a boss who has something bad in his affairs. We raise this issue in several iterations. First we discuss with him, he either agrees or resists. Next is the fork.
If he agrees, then we volunteer to help. We offer methods, automation, or direct personal participation. He gladly accepts. By personal participation we show that the methods work - we show the local result. Then we give it to him for escort - like, here, take it and do it, as I did.
If he initially resists, then we continue iterations of the discussion, but already in the presence of third parties. The man continues to resist. We screw in the key phrase: methods are not important, the result is important. It's like you're wrong, and you need to fix it. You can use your methods, you can use mine. My types are checked, the results were such and such. I don't know yours, but I respect your desire to do everything yourself. And, of course, I will be happy to help you.
Here the fork converges back. It doesn’t matter if a person acts by your methods, or by his own. The result is almost always the same - he fails. And he is either fired, or dismissed, or some other nasty thing is done to him.
And if he manages, then the exhaust for me is always positive. If he acted by my methods, then the benefit is triple: the result was achieved at my suggestion, and those same third parties are convinced of the efficiency of my methods, and I myself tested another hypothesis. If he acted by his own methods, then the benefit is single: the result was achieved with my submission.
The method, of course, smacks of an abomination. But in conditions where there is no development, no one needs anything, no one wants to move and try something new, it helps out perfectly.
Yes, and it gives a good formal reason for dismissing a bad leader. Alas, sometimes such a reason is not enough. And here everything is simple: you artificially increase the expectations from the boss, he does not meet them, and no one wants to evaluate him according to the previous criteria.
Total
The methods are really terrible. Both in its effectiveness and in its inhumanity. You just take it and start openly helping those who want to make a mistake. Without hiding his attitude to the very idea of change.
Usually, anyway, there is some kind of corporate ethics, no one wants to rock the boat. Expected behavior is either disagreement and resistance, or disagreement and indifference, or agreement and indifference, or agreement and participation.
And here - disagreement and participation. And not just participation - a person who, according to the forecast, was supposed to sabotage the process, runs ahead of the locomotive. The stupor of the change initiator is guaranteed.
There is also an expected result: after several iterations, they begin to listen to you more carefully.
Those who were the third person - because you are right too often.
Those who received a good bear - because you helped them and did not give them away.
Those who received an evil bear - so as not to get burned again (unless they were kicked out, of course).
Only those who got a bear provocateur try not to have anything more to do with you. Although, when.
Summary of the article
They try to put you on the path to change. Or their full implementation, like automation. Changes, in your opinion, stupid and harmful.
Try not to resist, not to remain silent, but to say - I think the changes are complete crap, but I will gladly implement them.
They will fall into a stupor, but still continue to act. Sincerely and joyfully implement change.
When everything fails solemnly, tell me - I told you. There will be no complaints against you, because. you tried. Moreover, most of all - it will be obvious. This is an angry bear.
If you tell a person personally, and not in public, that you do not agree, but will gladly fulfill his plan, then this is a good bear. The changes will fail, and the person will become your friend.
If a person has problems, you can show it - either to him or to third parties. Suggest changes and your active participation in them. If a person does as you say, then it will be good. If he does not, then everything will be bad - with him. And you are good, because you offered an idea, a plan, and help. This is a bear provocateur.
Carefully. Bear favors are a very effective method. For now, at least. Due to unusual presentation, behavior and pattern breaking.
Source: habr.com