I have long discovered one remarkable thing and have been using it successfully. But it doesn’t give me rest ... How to say it ... The moral side, or something. Too hooligan thing.
All would be nothing - you never know hooligan things in the world. But this one is painfully effective. I can not resist the temptation and not use it when a suitable case is tucked up.
Once upon a time I worked as an IT director, and I was forced to write either a regulation on a department or a strategy - I don’t remember what the paper was called. Her fierce bureaucrats checked it, but they missed one phrase, and it contained the quintessence of this thing.
It sounded like this. If the customer of the IT department services wants to make a mistake, the IT department will tell him about it. If the customer insists on making a mistake, then the IT department will be happy to help him in this.
It so happened that at the enterprise where I worked, leading cadres often changed. Five directors, five or six chief accountants, several chiefs of supply, production and sales. All of them, sooner or later, turned to me for automation. With the first of them, the story developed according to the standard scenario.
Standard script
Just imagine - there is an IT director and there is a chief accountant. Suppose all is well with them. Automation is performed at the proper level, the volume of manual operations is quite satisfactory, staff expansion does not occur, there are no emergency calls. Everything is transparent, clear and controllable. The accountants themselves do almost all the work, programmers are involved only in the case “listen, why she became a victim of self-blocking, please see ...”.
And then bam - and the chief accountant is changing, for some political reasons. Often - along with a change of director. A new aunt arrives and begins to swing rights. I, says, 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, do not touch anything, and you will be happy. No, give her a revolution in accounting. Be sure to redo everything, reconfigure everything, and, most importantly, on the title page of the list of changes should be her last name.
Naturally, I defend what was created earlier. Like, everything is good, everything works, everything is clear and predictable. To develop is great, and this must be dealt with. But to break everything for the sake of personal career interests is not development. I give the costs, how much it cost us, and how much the new remodeling project will cost. Well 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? What does this situation look like when viewed from a third party?
One person proposes change. The second resists. No more, no less.
The problem was compounded by the fact that, as I mentioned above, the chief accountant came along with the new director. Even if there were people in the conversation who knew the story and were able to confirm my words, they did not. Well, more precisely, they nodded their heads — but they nodded both to me and to them. They agreed with both parties. At the same time, according to the laws of mathematics, no advantage was added to anyone.
In general, as a result, I always remained extreme. I do not want changes, I hold on to the old, I am inert, I think only of myself, I just have 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 endlessly. In the end, I say: okay, be your way. I do not agree, but I will do as you said. I will be "gloomy and angry, but walking."
The story always ended the same way. Important: it always ended the same way. Always.
If not always, I would not notice the repeatability of the script.
So, the story always ended the same way. We did as requested by the new chief accountant (or any other boss). Sometimes they reached the end, sometimes they stopped in the middle. But they were always convinced that I was right, but he was not.
In the beginning, we threw out, stopped using part of the tools and processes. In the end, we threw away everything that we did during the “reforms” and included back what was before the “reforms” began.
It came to the ridiculous. There was a process and automation of inventory accounting, which consistently brought the desired result. Each new chief accountant violently attacked this system. They turned it off. The discrepancies crept up immediately. Included back. The chief accountant furiously argued that the system is fire, and there is no life without it.
And we became friends, as with the previous chief accountant, the head of supply, production, sales, etc.
After observing this picture and noticing its repeatability, I decided to experiment.
Angry bear
So, on the threshold stood the next chief accountant. I used to lament - in my mouth I’m going through all this devilry again. Now I was delighted, and immediately, in the forehead I asked - what revolutionary transformations will you carry out? Well, she issued her plan.
I thought: what for I will resist, to prove, if the result, in any case, will be identical? If I argue, we’ll do it anyway, only once again I will be branded an adversary of change. If, hypothetically, we do in my opinion, i.e. nothing will change, then in general I have no exhaust.
I decided not to resist, but to support and help. But with a slight caveat: at a meeting with the owner and director, he casually mentioned that I consider the conversion inappropriate. But with pleasure I will help to realize them. I thought they won’t pay attention. How so.
They began to inquire - what kind of crap is this? Why do not agree, but will you do, and even with joy? Well, I started weaving something again about the fact that we all went through it, and the result is known in advance, and there will be no sense, we will return to the old system anyway. But I do not want to spend more time arguing. I will help the new leader make sure that he is wrong.
He, of course, blushed like a cancer, and again heaped curses on me, the most harmless of which was "who do you think you are, *****?" Nobody, I say, imagined. 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. The owner openly and with a smile remained neutral. I want to, says, see what happens.
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 time to make friends, and for reasons not related to me. And here it’s direct specifically - they dismissed for offering some heresy, spent a lot of time and money, eventually returning to the old system. Moreover, "it was said."
I was shocked. He fell ill with depression for a couple of days - I do not like layoffs, in principle. And here, sort of, because of me. But then nothing left. And he again began to provide bear services.
I find it difficult to say exactly how many people were fired by such a makar. But there were several of them, from different departments and services. And always according to one scenario.
The script is simple. A person comes to the post and proposes changes related to automation or processes (i.e. my area of ​​responsibility). Ask for my opinion. I say that the changes are wrong and from them, at best, there will be no harm. And I always add: but I will gladly help to realize them. The new man falls into a stupor, but can no longer step back. Making changes, he’s getting fired.
At first it was fun. Then I was scared.
Good bear
Somehow I read about the concept of fail fast, fail cheap (get out quickly, get out cheap). The point is simple: it is not necessary to start up colossal changes, but put forward hypotheses and quickly test them without spending a lot of money and time. If the hypothesis turns out to be false, then this will become known quickly, and no one will suffer much.
And then the case turned up. A new supply manager came and proposed changes. He was the first who thought to come to me personally, and not to convene a meeting with the director and owner.
Well, I gave him the same tirade - that he offers shit, and not a damn thing will come of it. I thought now I’ll run to complain. And he sits and does not go anywhere. Come on, says, come up with something.
Then I remembered fail fast, fail cheap. Come on, I say, test your hypothesis in the local area. He was directly delighted. They took one girl from all his employees, changed the process, a little automated, watched a couple of weeks. Most importantly, they didn’t tell anyone but 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 that all his predecessors followed. Well, we have a type of synergy has begun.
She, too, 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 the production manager, and he decided to bring his man. He asked to evaluate the candidate and, in general, 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 one will linger on this position for a long time.
The conversation was tĂŞte-Ă -tĂŞte again. The director listened to me, smiled, and said that he would do it his own way. I smiled back, shrugged, and left.
Four months later, when he himself kicked out this production manager, he called me and told me about the reasons. I recalled our previous conversation, he nodded and said he remembered. And triumphantly ticks "you were right." They began to discuss changes in the environment surrounding the production manager. Yes, and became friends - well, as much as possible.
The result was a kind kind of bear service. The only difference from the evil one is that there are no third parties. Otherwise, everything is one to one: a new person comes in, offers changes, I say that nothing will come of it, but I will be glad to help, help, nothing comes of it.
Yes, the result is also different. Evil bear service leads to the dismissal of a person. Kind - makes a person your friend.
Provocateur bear
This is generally a bomb. It does not work with new arrivals, 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 business. We raise this issue in several iterations. First we discuss with him, he either agrees or resists. Next is the plug.
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 a local result. Then we give him for accompaniment - like, take it and do as I did.
If he initially resists, then we continue to iterate the discussion, but already in the presence of third parties. Man continues to resist. We turn in the key phrase: the methods are not important, the result is important. Like you are all bad, and you need to fix it. You can by your own methods, you can 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.
Then the fork converges back. It doesn’t matter whether a person acts by your methods, or by your own. The result is almost always the same - he can not cope. And he is either fired, or dismissed, or some other muck is made with him.
And if he copes, then the exhaust for me is always positive. If he acted by my methods, then the benefit is threefold: both the result was achieved from my submission, and the very third parties are convinced of the efficiency of my methods, and I myself checked the next hypothesis. If he acted by his own methods, then the benefit is single: the result is achieved from my submission.
The method, of course, smacks of abomination. But in conditions when there is no development, nobody needs anything, nobody wants to move and try something new, it helps out perfectly.
Yes, and gives a good formal reason for dismissing a bad leader. Alas, sometimes such an occasion is sorely lacking. And here everything is simple: you artificially increase expectations from the boss, he does not meet them, and nobody wants to evaluate him according to the previous criteria.
Total
The methods are actually scary. And 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; nobody wants to rock the boat. Expected behavior is either disagreement and resistance, or disagreement and indifference, or consent and indifference, or consent and participation.
And here is disagreement and participation. And not just participation - a person runs ahead of the engine, who, according to the forecast, was supposed to sabotage the process. Stator of change initiator guaranteed.
There is the expected result: after several iterations, they begin to listen to you more carefully.
Those who were third parties - because you too often find yourself right.
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 (if they were not kicked out, of course).
Only those who received a provocateur bear try not to have more to do with you. Although, when how.
Summary of the article
They are trying to hang you on the change. Or their full implementation, like automation. The changes, in your opinion, are stupid and harmful.
Try not to resist, not to remain silent, but to say - I consider the changes to be complete crap, but I will gladly carry them out.
They will fall into a stupor, but still continue to act. Make changes sincerely and with joy.
When everything triumphantly fails, say - I told you so. There will be no complaints against you, because you tried Moreover, most of all - it will be obvious. This is an evil 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. Change will fail, and man will become your friend.
If a person has problems, you can show it 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 fine. If he doesn’t, then everything will be bad - with him. And it’s good for you, because you have proposed an idea, a plan, and help. This is a provocateur bear.
Caution. Bear services are a very effective method. For now, at least. Due to unusual feed, behavior and break patterns.