Co-evolution Quarterly Spring 1981
Michael Phillips
While growing up we are taught how to get things done
in the world. The process is:
analyze the problem, set time limits and then do it.
When we wanted a puppy, we figured out where it would
live, whoıd take care of it and then imagined what life would be like with the
dog as our friend. We thought of
ways to convince our parents about our good idea and planned the steps to get
the puppy: asking friends, reading ads and going to visit a pound.
We timed the project to happen on our birthday or
Christmas.
Most people follow this strategy all their lives.
The problem with this approach is that it doesnıt
work. It especially doesnıt work
for getting things done in institutions.
The following table suggests why it doesn't work. The
interests of individuals do not coincide with the interests of institutions.
|
|
Individual Needs |
Institution Needs |
|
Recognition: |
Appreciate ³me² for the good ³Iım² doing |
To reward all people for their cooperative efforts |
|
Planning: |
To have clear goals and precise tactics |
To have goals that include diverse departmental
needs and allow widespread support |
|
Action: |
To move Step-by-step to have tight quality control,
and to maintain constant monitoring |
Allow time for all diverse needs to be expressed and
incorporated in the process |
|
Timing: |
To set time limits which allow the measurement of
process |
To avoid precise limits. Instead set a pace of
³steady consistent progress² |
INOIVIDUAL APPROACH
Let's follow a change process using both approaches.
Tom Smith arrives in Santa Rosa and holds a press conference
at his hotel announcing that his company, Smith Development, plans to build a
major 16,000 square foot airport on the east side of the city in 18
months. He hires a local planning
firm. When they finish their work,
he calls another press conference.
After that he starts buying land and hires the architects for the final
design. A few months later he
shows the final airport model to the press with an announced completion date of
14 months in the future. Then he
begins the process of getting permits.
Of course the airport will never be built. Public opposition will stop Smith regardless
of how much money he puts into the project. Smith followed the approach that satisfies individual needs
but not institutional needs.
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
Here is the successful approach of Sam Redford. Sam
moves to Santa Rosa for a long stay, He talks to everyone he meets to get the
names of anyone who would be interested in a meeting to discuss Santa Rosaıs
need for a new airport. At the meeting his role is to encourage the natural
leaders and interested parties to form a study group, and he offers his time to
help them. As the process grows,
Redford gets this first group's approval to use their names in talking to all
community groups in Santa Rosa while the discussion is at its rudimentary, formative
stage. No time line is ever
discussed. All groups are
encouraged to express opinions and are privately sought out to make sure their
opinions are heard and understood. From this point on, Redford helps diverse
groups find areas of agreement and encourages slow, careful planning studies
which encompass the expressed needs of the broadest consensus. The final
planning report is taken to every possible interest group for evaluation, especially
government agencies, before actual designs are begun. Everyone is included, from Boy Scouts to union leaders.
The whole process may take four years. The final airport may have severe restrictions on noise, pollution, and parking, and it may only be open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., but it will be built if it's in the interest of the people of Santa Rosa: Sam will probably be the developer, but he won't get much recognition if he's gone through this process effectively, Everyone else (especially politicians) will get credit.
Anything else Sam sets out to do in Santa Rosa from then on will get widespread support.
The differences between Tom and Sam are the same ones point-by point, that are shown in the table of differences between individual and institutional needs.