Have you ever tried to get "buy-in" from others or have others tried
to get it from you? The other day I was coaching a client I'll call
Larry. Larry was telling me how he had gotten his co-worker Patrick to
"buy-in" to his plan for handling a sales event. Patrick said he'd go
along with Larry's plan, but after the meeting, Larry said that his
"win" felt hollow; he had this nagging feeling that it wasn't genuine.
Sure enough, as the weeks passed, Patrick didn't do what he had agreed
to and Larry ended up spending several more meetings with Patrick.
Eventually Larry learned that Patrick had concerns about the plan. Larry
also learned something important about getting "buy-in".
Getting
Buy-In and Losing Commitment. What Larry learned is that by getting
buy-in he often lost what he really wanted: commitment. When you're
trying to get others to "buy-in", you've already developed a solution to
sell them. Your goal becomes getting others to agree with what you've
already decided is the best solution for you and them, rather than
engaging in a conversation in which you jointly develop a solution with
them. If you're seeking buy-in you can't afford to be curious; you might
learn that others have information or needs that don't match the
solution you're selling - then you're stuck. If you're like Larry, you
may have experienced the failure of success; you may be able to persuade
others to buy-in to your solution even when they still have unaddressed
concerns.
Crafting Solutions to Create Commitment. Internal
Commitment is a core value of the Skilled Facilitator approach. It is a
state of mind in which you feel personally responsible for the choice
you make. You are committed to the choice because it is intrinsically
compelling or satisfying, not because you are rewarded for making the
choice or penalized for not making it. Internal commitment is so
valuable because it reflects a sense of ownership and a strong
motivation to make something happen.
I first learned this at camp
as a teenager. As I "supervised" a group of campers, the camp director,
who was a social worker, told me, "Roger, people support what they help
to create." Years later I learned why this is true. It's not because
people are participating that leads them to support a group decision;
it's that when they participate productively, the solution the group
agrees to meets peoples' needs. To generate commitment in a group, I
believe you need to ensure that everyone has the same relevant pool of
information, that everyone has expressed their interests, and that the
solution incorporates the relevant information and meets people's
interests.
This means shifting your mindset from selling to
crafting a solution with others. Rather than going into a conversation
with a pre-packaged solution you will try to sell to others, it means
going into a conversation being clear about your interests and being as
curious about others' interests as you are passionate about your own.
Then together you can identify your interests and craft a solution that
addresses them.
It Doesn't Have to Be Their Idea; It Simply has to
Meet their Needs. Have you ever thought that the way to get people
committed to your solution is to have them think it was their idea? If
so, you've probably asked them some questions that, if they answered
"correctly", would lead them to suggest the very solution you had
already thought of. Many people use this manipulative strategy (which
they can't be transparent about with the client) because they mistakenly
believe that others have to come up with the solution to be committed
to it. They don't; the solution simply has to meet their needs.
My
clients who are facilitators often make this mistake; you may too. For
example, a facilitator wants to use a set of ground rules to help a
group work together. She has a set of ground rules that she would like
the group to use and mistakenly believes that the group will find the
ground rules more desirable if they come up with them on their own. As a
result, the facilitator asks the group, "What ground rules would you
like to have for working effectively together?" privately hoping that
the group will identify ground rules that the facilitator uses. If the
group doesn't identify the facilitator's ground rules, the facilitator
subtly tries to get her own ground rules in place, either by asking more
leading questions (like "would it be good to have a ground rule about
sharing your reasoning?), rephrasing the group member's suggestions, or
finally, if all else fails, suggesting some of her own.
I believe
that group members don't have to develop their own ground rules to be
committed to using them; they simply need to make an informed free
choice to use them and believe that the ground rules meet their needs.
As a group process expert, I have a clear idea of what kinds of ground
rules lead to more effective group behavior (it's our "Ground Rules for
Effective Groups"). Part of being accountable to the group means sharing
my ground rules with them and explaining my reasoning for using them.
Then I ask whether people have any concerns about using these ground
rules and whether there are other ground rules that they would like to
suggest using. In this way, I am transparent about and accountable for
my thinking, I'm curious about their thinking, and together we can
commit to a set of ground rules that meets all of our needs.
What
are your thoughts about creating internal commitment? Please share them
with us and others at the Mutual Learning Action Group.
