So you're in a meeting with a client and it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. They are a very positive bunch, and meaning well. They want to really make a difference in their environment by taking on new ideas that are cutting edge, and are very sure of their approaches. Their viewpoint in such planning meetings is "let's get going, this stuff is great, the sooner the better". One employee mentions that they need to consider where they are right now and what they have, and work toward the new vision, but that doesn't fly - they want to go straight to the new. Another employee mentions that there are reasons for considering other different models because there are potential problems, but he's shot down as being negative and bringing in problems not solutions.
Or how about a slightly different scenario where there is just one person in the meeting with the new idea. But most of conversation is around what already exists in the current environment, and "if it's not broke, why fix it?", "Why not just make a few changes in what is already there, fix up any problems, and leave it at that?" Ideas of doing things in new and revolutionary ways don't fly, they just don't see the point. One guy in the corner criticises that thinking saying "We've had loads of problems doing what we've done, maybe we should consider something else?" But nothing seems to get through.
Finally, a rather more volatile situation, but in reality no more inefficient as the former two scenarios. The new idea is presented with enthusiasm, but most of the people in the meeting look like they're just waiting for their opportunity to criticise it. The presentation ends and the critique floodgate opens, loads of reasons why this isn't a good idea and it won't work. Someone pops up his head and says "Well what if we started with what we've got and worked toward that?", but they are drowned out by the strong opinions that its simply not a good idea.
I'm sure that you'll agree that all of these scenarios have their problems, and initiatives to move forward based on each would be troublesome. These scenarios are loosely based on inbalance in the viewpoints of the Disney Creativity Strategy (as introduced by Robert Dilts). The model is based on three different points of view which lead to greater creativity, and in my experience greater consulting practice. The three viewpoints are the Dreamer, the Realist, and the Critic.
The Dreamer is the kind of viewpoint that says "Look at all the wonderful things we could do, just imagine how much better things would be if we did them". They are about thinking of new things, setting new goals, making a difference. The focus is the future, and change.
The Realist looks at new ideas and thinks practically about things based on the reality of the situation. They have solutions focussed, thinking "with those goals in mind, what can we actually practically do based on what we know and how things are now".
The Critic looks at the new ideas and thinks "What could go wrong?", "What else could be done instead". They are great at finding problems with things, and the holes that could cause problems later on. And airing those thoughts and getting to the bottom of them.
I propose that all three viewpoints should be considered in consulting effort, including any kind of design, workshop, meeting, or important interaction. It gives a balanced view of what is possible, what is practical, what could go wrong, and how to mitigate risks. It sets goals, considers problems, and creates workable solutions. If all three of these viewpoints are welcomed and embraced, you'll be in much better shape to deliver something worthwhile.
So if you're in a piece of work and notice an imbalance toward one of these viewpoints, ensure that you cover the others, or bring in people who will do so with you.
Until next time
Richard Lindesay
www.richardlindesay.com
@RichardLindesay