I was listening to Canadian Education Association CEO, Ron Canuel, recently and he referenced John Kotter, a professor at the Harvard Business School. It was a name I knew, but I hadn’t previously been exposed to his work. Canuel shared Kotter’s list of the four strategies people use to help kill good ideas.
- Fear mongering involves creating infectious anxiety, scaring others into believing a good idea is far too risky to pursue
- Death by Delay entails stalling an idea with never-ending questions, straw polls, and meetings—until the idea eventually loses momentum and fizzles out
- Confusion consists of peppering a conversation with a stream of irrelevant facts and convoluted questions, making it near impossible for the innovator to keep the discussion on track
- Ridicule is a direct attack on the character of the person who proposed the idea, creating indirect doubts about the idea itself
I am sure this list can be applied to many professions, but for me, it definitely does apply in education — and I admit I am guilty of at least one of them, having suggested my share of committees to delay ideas in the past. In looking at any of the major educational initiatives, both past and current, they all seem to suffer from those roadblocks on Kotter’s list.
Kotter’s suggestions on how to deal with these challenges:
- Invite the opposition in — “bring in the lions” — which is often counter intuitive since it focusses attention on the idea, which creates attention and engagement and can help win over hearts and minds; critics can be helpful
- Keep ideas clear, simple and full of common sense and don’t allow yourself to get lost in the details
- Treat the audience with respect – don’t try to beat people into submission. This just makes you look bad. Let the crowd come to understand and sympathize with your view
- Pay attention to the masses, and don’t obsess over the very few. In the end, it is about the majority, not the minority
- Preparation is really what it is all about
Kotter’s ideas are part of a book he has co-written with UBC professor, Lorne Whitehead, Buy-In: Saving Your Good Idea from Getting Shot Down.
Here is a short video interview that summarizes many of the key notions:
A good reminder that sometimes a good idea is not good enough.
cultureofyes.ca 
Thanks Chris, an interesting post, particularly given the elections underway for boards of education and municipal councils. As decision makers, we all need to look at how we entertain new ideas?
Thanks Jane. I have also found it interesting to see the reaction to the BC Education Plan introduced last Friday, through the lens of looking at the use of the strategies that people use to kill good ideas.
I want to push back on the “paying attention to the masses” suggestion, or at least have it clarified.
If we really paid attention to the masses when trying to push good ideas into our society, we have a few things that never would have happened, such as the abolition of slavery, women getting the right to vote, and the civil rights movement of the 60s, as well as the ending of the bedroom laws in Canada. These kinds of social innovations have done a tremendous amount to improve our society, but I do not think that these movements were started by, or supported by, the masses.
Hi David – I haven’t explored fully Kotter’s take on it, but I think “paying attention to the masses” does not necessarily going along with the masses. I agree with you, most innovations are usually not ideas initially supported by the majority. If we simply went along with public opinion, not much would likely ever change. That said, we need to be sure when we are listening, reacting, responding etc. – we are not just doing so to the small vocal minority.
Having experienced each of the barriers highlighted on Kotter’s list, I can’t help but wonder how many of the blocks have been intentional, and how many were simply out of ignorance. People generally fear what they don’t know, and since it is impossible for administrators to stay on top of the wide range of evolving technologies, maybe these strategies are simply a survival strategy. If we block the person/tool/strategy, we might learn about it in the meantime, or it might go away.
Keeping the ideas clear and simple is the strategy that has the most potential where I work, but any idea one might attempt to simplify likely exists within an ecosystem of many people/tools/strategies that are best understood in the context of the whole.
Maybe our leaders need to subscribe to an ongoing course about ICT in education. Lessons might consist of one strategy, one tool, or an introduction to one person each day. If you’re lucky, you already know of a leader willing to take 15 minutes a day as a learner. More likely, you already know of a leader in need of a teacher-mentor. For homework, why not see what you can do about connecting the two…
Of all of them, I find fear mongering to be the most present in education – perhaps because education can seem very polarized. It is interesting reading the list, as I read it and think this list was made for education – it is a good reminder that it also applies very well to so many other professions and efforts at innovation.
Invite the opposition in — “bring in the lions”
If this is genuinely done, another strategy I learned recently would be appropriate:
the no proxy rule; don’t let anyone play “devil’s advocate.”
If invitations for a discussion on a great idea went out to all stakeholders, everyone should be up front about what their concerns are and not speculate as to what another person or group’s concerns might be. Guessing as to the views of other interest groups and pretending to represent these interests might become a form of death by delay. It is also, in some ways, like posting comments on a blog anonomously where one shares ideas or criticisms without taking ownership of them.
Excellent point Scott. I am continually frustrated by phrases like, “I am sure other people are thinking” or “While I don’t have this concern, a lot of people have said” or “People are telling me”. Let’s focus on ideas and let’s be honest about where we are coming from.
Glad i read the other posts, i was just about to post the same tips Scott suggested! Scott, good example with the bolg.
Great post Chris.
Thanks Ryan – I appreciate the kind words.
Some good ideas there. I also really appreciate your honesty in mentioning examples in your past where you used committees to delay ideas. If you don’t mind me asking, did you think those ideas were good or bad? Did you see an advantage to delaying them, or were you just hoping that they would go away?
I think one of the challenging pieces for me is distinguishing whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea being shot down. I know I’ve managers shoot down ideas without giving them enough consideration, but later found out that similar ideas were tried in the past unsuccessfully. Also, different people can have different interpretations about the same situation. One person’s “death by delay” might be another person’s attempt at doing thorough research or consultation before making changes, particularly if they are contentious ones.
One of the lessons is probably just the need to be decisive and transparent when rejecting an idea. If decision-makers don’t like an idea, they should just say so and provide reasons why. That at least gives the person who proposed the idea a clear way forward, either they can address the criticisms and deliver a revised proposal, or move on. The passive-aggressive approaches outlined by Kotter are real energy killers.
Hi Nick – I suppose I thought the ideas weren’t good ideas, or a distraction from other directions, and that is why I deferred them to a committee. The better strategy, perhaps, would have been to address them head-on. I think the point you raise is a really good one – I am pretty sure most of my ideas are good ideas, and the ideas that I disagree with are bad ideas.
I was watching a short video of Jim Collins on Daniel Pink’s blog here: http://www.danpink.com/archives/2011/10/jim-collins-on-3-ways-to-demotivate-people-at-work I like what we says when we should be upfront if we are really wanting feedback or just creating an artificial feedback loop because we think we should.
I do find Kotter’s work particularly interesting to consider it in the context of the new BC Education Plan and some of the reactions to it.
Thanks for the link to that video, Collins raises some great points. I’m glad you and other education leaders are blogging, I’m constantly learning things and hearing ideas I otherwise might never have stumbled across.
You are welcome Nick – I find both Pink and Collins to be excellent sources of resources and both challenge my thinking.
Chris–
Transparency is required. The BC education plan, unfortunately, is far from transparent and, thus, people rightfully have fear and / or mistrust. The “masses” who are reacting vociferously are, most likely, the ones at the front of the room or beside the students in the classroom or those unable to pay for private schools. Their reactions / concerns do matter and cannot simply be discounted as fear mongering etc by those imposing the changes.
Do I believe that Harvard Business or Pearson cares, sincerely cares about my child entering kindergarten. No, but I do know that the teacher in that room does. If that teacher raises concerns about the BC education plan, should I immediately discount that as fear mongering, stalling, etc. I hope not.
Public education needs to be protected and supported. There are many forces, with deep pockets, aiming their cannons at the foundations of BC’s public system.
The public trusts that those leading the system and those at the frontlines are ensuring that the system remains just that: public.
Thank you for encouraging feedback, Chris. I love to see democracy in action.
Many voices…