When working with changes, whatever they are specifically related to, be it a company’s development strategy, motivation system, organizational structure or code design rules, there is always one key link: ideas. Ideas answer the question, “and what, in fact, will we change?”
Ideas are very different in quality. There are spherical horses in a vacuum, which, even if realized, do not bring any at least any explainable benefit, but there are levers, pressing on which takes seconds, and the result is visible after an hour.
However, today is not about ideas - let's talk about their authors. About dreamers.
I tried to make some sort of classification based on personal experience. I do not pretend to complete the disclosure of the issue, for he himself is 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 you put it in one sentence), divide the payroll equally, openly discuss the company's problems in a wide circle, do morning exercises together, etc.
The key difference between naive romantics: sincere faith in their ideas. It’s clear that you can’t check the sincerity for 100% - there are rogues who, even at the age of 20, can depict the necessary emotions in such a way that they cannot be distinguished.
But one can judge by indirect signs. First and foremost: they are terribly offended if their idea is criticized. The second follows the first: they start a war "against the system."
Indeed, how can one criticize the idea of ​​world peace or just a unique quality code? Who would 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 everything without irony, because 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 the brink by the obvious correctness of their utopia. Do you have something against the unique high-quality code? Do you attract development costs here, which, from some fright, should be lower than the income generated by the product? Do you want to use other people's modules, developments or whole frameworks? So who are you after that?
The ideas of naive romantics are large-scale and unrealizable. True, their scale is stereotyped, therefore it causes neither enthusiasm, nor admiration for the author, nor a desire to implement these ideas. Roughly speaking, all naive romantics offer the same plus / minus. Their ideas are not realizable in a specific context - we all understand that evaluating the feasibility of an idea “in principle” doesn’t make much sense, it’s worth doing only in relation to “locality”.
What to do: do not criticize openly, include changes in the team, and in rare cases (for particularly annoying romantics) - let them steer.
Realists
The most common type of visionary. Although, they can’t be called visionaries, but rather workhorses. But, nevertheless, ideas are offered, so they got into the classification.
Lay a rug in front of the workshop so that it doesn’t fall in the winter, hang paper towels in the toilet instead of (or together) a slow dryer, print invoices on purple paper so that the large customer’s bookkeeping pay 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 small, but tangible benefits. No scale, but the maximum hit in the context, in the area for which the idea comes up.
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 on large-scale, which means - costly transformation, these guys do not swing.
Realists sometimes break the jackpot. They propose a trifle, in their opinion, that solves a small local problem, and someone with a broader outlook sees that the topic is real, capable of bringing significant benefit. True, the original idea in this case requires modification, which is no longer a realist, and, accordingly, the authorship of the final idea floats to another person.
There are cases when a realist becomes a drug addict (see below) if ideas and their implementation are excessively encouraged, extolled.
What to do: not to interfere, but to watch, so as not to become a drug addict, include in the change team.
Drug addicts
This is a difficult case, but, fortunately, is rare. If you remember the film "Office Romance", then there was Shurochka, who had once been put forward for community service, and since then can not be pushed back. If you replace “community work” with “change,” you get the same addict.
A drug addict is a person who has too often been trusted to implement his own ideas. As Shurochka understood the advantages of social work over the usual, so drug addicts understand the value of changes compared to the routine performance of their own duties (whatever they were before the development of abstinence).
Unfortunately, the dependence on changes is forming very quickly. Sometimes it’s enough for a person to offer, realize and receive excessive praise for 2-3 ideas to become a drug addict.
The key condition is praise, especially with all honest people. What is the difference between such praise? You can’t take her back. It will not work out six months later and say: these guys, I told you here that Shurochka is good and well done - and so, in short, I changed my mind, she’s a stupid fool. This is a political issue, and such recognition will only strengthen, on the one hand, the authority of Shurochka, and on the other, turn the leader into a satrap, destroying young talents to please his interests. God forbid, it will also be heard by naive romantics.
Addicts begin to forgive the whole company. Worn with their ideas from top to bottom.
Colleagues and lower ones are told about their new ideas, they need recognition and respect, “I care about you idiots” (remember how Shurochka screamed “And I still got tickets to the camp for his children!”), Sometimes they just don’t give work fine, because they want to stand nearby during the day, “take a photo”, find new opportunities for improvements, etc.
Parents simply endure the brain. They write letters, ask for meetings, catch in the corridors and even in the closet, speak at all meetings (including corporate parties), and are included in any non-working activity.
Proshared addicts are trying to legitimize their status. This is how the change directors, quality and business process departments, coordination change headquarters, quality circles and other departments with inexplicable functions appear. Quite well-developed over time, they realize that they are tired of everything, like a bitter radish, and are re-qualified as steam locomotives (see below).
And all for what? For the sake of praise. And since its quality decreases, it is necessary to compensate for the quantity. If earlier one idea was praised in such a way that tears of joy flowed from my eyes, now I need to write two dozen suggestions in order to make it “OK, thanks.”
What to do: praise in batches, and it’s better to privately, notice the drug addiction in time, in no case give power, try to return to your previous, usual place of work, in extreme cases - to expel.
Steam locomotives
Even worse than drug addicts. You are better known to them as "effective managers."
Think for yourself where a steam locomotive can go, for example, from the railway station of Chelyabinsk? In principle, there are many directions - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Zlatoust, Chebarkul, and even Vladivostok. But the airport will not reach, as well as to Washington, Davletbaevo or Kuluyevo.
We translate into the language of changes. A steam engine can propose and implement Scrum, Lean, TOC, functional-cost analysis, categorical procurement, DevOps, ISO, CRM-system (“as I had at my previous job, I had a normal one, I just forgot the name”), KPI (“ I'll look at home, the file was with indicators "), etc. But the steam train will not be able to cross the scrum and CBT if someone has not done this before him.
The ideas of a steam locomotive can hardly be called ideas, in this sense it looks like a naive romance, but much worse. Everything is clear with the romantic at once - the idea is beautiful, but utopian, but here it seems that there aren’t any, and there are some good examples, and there are books, and instructions, and, most importantly, the crowds of info-gypsy living at all major stations. No sooner does the engine slow down at the platform, when ai-nane-nane is filled.
If the engine does not have power, then do not care. It does not help, and does not interfere - let yourself tell your friends in the smoking room how great it would be to work on SAF. Five minutes later, everyone will forget what this abbreviation means.
But if there is power, then write is gone. The other day, it brought me wild wind to a children's clinic, I saw firsthand what a lean hospital is - it's time to write a sequel to "Programmer on sick leave . " It is immediately clear that the engine rode in all its beautiful, unrestrained, terrible, but such meaningless power.
The feasibility of the ideas of a steam locomotive is of little concern if it has power. He generally does not imagine what realizability, context, environment are. Resources - yes, it knows. Especially if there is an opportunity to steer these resources.
The main difference between the engine: it does not give a damn about the benefits of the changes. Not because he is bad. They just never told him that change should be useful. He was told that there should be a change.
What to do: give / expand power only after confirming the benefits of the changes in a limited context, never take his word for it in the forecasts of the success of the changes, never take the locomotives immediately to a high position, always carefully monitor his work.
Revolutionaries
These are harmless creatures, in essence, if they are correctly treated - either in any way, or with humor.
The key difference between their ideas: they are always directed against the system, the mainstream, the general direction of the company, team, country, etc.
This is not a difference, but rather a goal. They’re just coming up with ideas exactly such that they differ from the current course by 180 degrees.
They are somewhat reminiscent of naive romantics, sometimes even ideas sound one to one. But among revolutionaries it is always against the system.
This is their life credo, personal choice, prerequisite, need. In the Maslow pyramid there is such a need for belonging. Most people want to belong to some kind of social group, and most want to belong to the majority. The revolutionaries also want, but to the minority.
I had one such acquaintance, a revolutionary. In each particular moment, if you look at it, everything seemed logical and explainable - yes, the ideas are right, well done guy. But, knowing the history of the development of these ideas, it is impossible to look at them without a smile.
He always wanted to be not for something, but against something. For the sake of this I was ready to be for something. For example, there was time - Navalny was fond of, considering him a true patriot (well, himself at the same time, of course). Whom I hated - of course.
Then he read some information that Navalny is an American spy. Everything, love passed, tomatoes wilted. But a holy place does not happen to be empty; a new revolutionary idea is needed. The dude did not think long, saved his time, and chose Putin - now he was considered a true patriot.
And, most importantly, at the same time it was necessary to hate the same ones - officials, deputies, etc. They are always bad, both under Navalny and under Putin.
Similarly with all other areas of life. Everyone eats pizza and sausages, the revolutionary is fond of healthy nutrition according to Shatalova. Everyone begins to think about a healthy diet - the dude proceeds to pimps. Everyone is trying to buy foreign cars, the revolutionary deliberately buys a Chevy Niva (although he has enough money for a foreign car, he knows for sure how poor the quality of domestic auto components is, because we spent a lot of time at the factory for their production).
What to do: display in a constructive field, including changes in the team, do not provoke and discourage, let quietly have fun with revolutionary ideas, reduce to a therapist.
Crows
Crows are those who croak, and then ... Nothing. Just croaking.
These are all commentators of articles that begin their thoughts with the words “the author needs ...”, “my advice to you is ...” or “not so necessary, but like that ...”. These are all workers who shout ideas at meetings, and when asked to stand up and repeat, they are silent and joke. This is all who offer 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 not to bear any responsibility not only for 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.
The old crows go even further - they consciously make their ideas so that they are not accepted, or even considered. The idea was not accepted, but the fact of its delivery to the world remains, which means that the crow is well done.
The feasibility and scale of the ideas of the raven is controlled, but in a specific way: they try to make the idea as less feasible as possible and more ambitious. Of all the types of dreamers, crows are the only ones who do this.
The purpose of the crow is to croak. Everything. So she croaks. Loud and resentful - this is important. Everyone should know that the crow is well done, generates many ideas, and nobody wants to consider them. Therefore, the crow is offended, and continues to croak louder. While it, unfortunately, is not knocked out of a slingshot - just so that it does not croak.
If you look closely, you will notice a lot of ravens around, especially in politics, especially among those who are in opposition (I don’t specifically mean anyone, seriously).
What to do: include changes in the team, or give power to a limited area, or expel.
Fools
With these, everything is complicated. Their ideas can be large-scale or small, but they are always realizable and purely practical. True, only for them.
Fools offer only ideas, the implementation of which 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 rogue got burned, and managed to imagine everything so that no one would guess his true intentions.
How to relate to the crooks - I do not know, to be honest. While he offers ideas that serve him personally, there are no questions - we must refuse. But when a rascal takes on improvements for the benefit of, for example, a team, there is no clear answer.
Especially disgusting when the idea of ​​a rogue does not directly interfere with other teams. It does not interfere, but it does not help. And his team - hoo how. Other teams get an indirect influence - they automatically become a little worse due to the fact that the team rogues got better.
Fools create internal competition in the company. Everyone works, how they work, sometimes they say something at general meetings - they either croak, or offer something revolutionary, or save the world, and a scumbag sticks a small, meaningless offer, like buying a board for scrum, access to change the accounting system (“We will fix it a little for ourselves, so that it would be more convenient”), several thousand rubles a month for a good paid task manager, a small bonus fund for our department, etc. It seems a trifle, but only for the rogue and his department.
Quietly, gradually, imperceptibly, but the rogue does his job. Like a hamster, drags into the house everything that lies badly - but, in a good way. He improves only the group to which he belongs, and better, which he leads.
What to do: maximize the use, expand the group, which includes the rogue, preferably - to the scale of the entire company.
Unreachable
Well, the coolest type of visionaries - unattainable. I don’t know how to name them better. These are people who combine the best from 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, not just for imaginary, but for real perfection. From steam locomotives - constancy in achieving goals and taking into account best practices. From revolutionaries - fearlessness to the movement against the mainstream. From rogue - the pursuit of good, not only limited, but the widest possible group. Only from the ravens do not take anything.
Unattainable change this world, creating innovations that are admired, envied, imitated for decades.
The key difference between the unattainable: they do it. More precisely, they did it. Only a positive result, realized on a large-scale, romantic, sometimes utopian idea, makes the dreamer unattainable.
Hundreds of thousands, millions of startups, lone developers, indie musicians, line managers with fire in their eyes, opposition leaders with cool ideas are not unattainable. Until they realize their ideas.
From the side, for contemporaries, it almost always looks like a miracle. It seems like everyone is sitting, doing about the same thing, and then a dude appears who makes a breakthrough. Changing the market, no matter which, and now no one is working the old way. For future generations, of course, the unattainable already does not seem to be such - a bunch of analysts write hundreds of articles and books where the secret of success is chewed.
But the intelligibility of the success of the unattainable does not make it repeatable, and the unattainable remains so. The success of each unattainable is unique, so it makes no sense to compare them. Although, many are trying - to bring out the very "secret of success."
Well, I will try, in the context of the article. The secret is simple, really.
The first point is a large-scale idea, like naive romantics. Such that she took for the soul, motivated, forced herself to want.
The second point is the feasibility, at least in principle, by the forces of the dreamer and an accessible circle of people. The idea should be both large-scale and feasible - namely AND, and not OR or XOR. And feasibility is evaluated 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 direct with one's own hands, but the main responsibility is on the dreamer himself. People along the way will appear, disappear, be inspired and disappointed, and the dreamer should be adamant. Well, constantly reevaluating the context, moving forward flexibly, understanding the current situation and forecasts of its changes.
Well, the fourth point is taking into account the interests of the group that is engaged in implementation. Like a rascal. This is not necessarily about financial interests, goals may be different, but the dreamer should not think only about himself and his dream.
Perhaps that's all. I think that, like other authors of the “secret of the success of great people,” I got incredible nonsense. These are good “secrets of success” - everything seems to be clear, but you’ll understand what to do.
What to do: nothing, such people do not appear near us.
What to do with each specific category of dreamers, I outlined briefly, but in the next article I will tell you more in detail and with examples.
Summary
In working with changes, the first step is to get ideas - which, in fact, can and should be done to achieve the goal.
People give ideas, but they are not homogeneous. I will outline a brief classification based on my own experience.
Naive romantics - offer ideas like world peace. Offended if their ideas are criticized. The scale of ideas is large. Feasibility is none. What to do: do not criticize openly, include changes in the team, and in rare cases (for particularly annoying romantics) - let them steer.
Realists themselves propose, they themselves realize small ideas that exactly fit into the context and resources. The scale is small, feasibility is high. What to do: not to interfere, but to watch, so as not to become a drug addict, include in the change team.
Addicts are people addicted to the generation of ideas. Very toxic. The scale of ideas is very different. Realizability is also different, but she is not interested in drug addicts. Only the fact of generating an idea and praise for it. What to do: praise in batches, and it’s better to privately, notice the drug addiction in time, in no case give power, try to return to your previous, usual place of work, in extreme cases - to expel.
Steam locomotives - offer standard ideas, such as introducing popular techniques. The scope of ideas can be wide. Feasibility can be quite normal. But usually no good. What to do: give / expand power only after confirming the benefits of the changes in a limited context, never take his word for it in the forecasts of the success of the changes, never take the locomotives immediately to a high position, always carefully monitor his work.
Revolutionaries - offer only ideas that contradict the “official” course, whatever it may be. If the “official” course changes diametrically, the ideas of the revolutionaries change just as diametrically. The scale of ideas is different. Feasibility is usually none. What to do: display in a constructive field, including changes in the team, do not provoke and discourage, let quietly have fun with revolutionary ideas, reduce to a therapist.
Crows are people who offer ideas that no one will implement. Therefore, they offer. Specially offer such ideas that no one will bother. What to do: include changes in the team, or give power to a limited area, or expel.
Fools - offer only ideas that serve the benefit of their personal or group, which includes. The scale is different, the feasibility is high. What to do: maximize the use, expand the group, which includes the rogue, preferably - to the scale of the entire company.
Unattainable - people changing the world. Ideas are large-scale and feasible, and this becomes known only in fact. At the very beginning they are laughing at them. What to do: nothing, such people do not appear near us.