Hi, I'm Ken Bettenhausen, Professor of Management at the University of Colorado, Denver. Throughout the specialization, John and I have preached a common mantra, start with the low-hanging fruit. That is, start with the changes you can justify based on their return on investment. The reason for doing this is pretty straightforward. Changes that you can justify using a business model, that is, changes that generate revenue and reduce costs, should be easy sells. Doesn't every company want to improve its bottom line? But as I mentioned earlier, even when your idea can save the company money, you can't assume that others will see it that way. That's because, one, what's good for the company as a whole may impose costs on certain groups or individuals within it. Or two, the people most affected by the change might have different priorities than you. Perhaps the change you want to make isn't part of their job description. Or maybe they're backing initiatives they think will generate higher returns than your idea either for the company as a whole or for their particular part of the organization. And while no one's going to admit this, some part of those returns may be the ego satisfaction or enhanced political capital that comes from the company adopting their ideas rather than implementing yours. This lesson and the next one look at the political side of organizations. The goal is for you to be able to use two tools, interest mapping, stakeholder analysis, to anticipate potential allies and detractors. As well as the people who really don't care one way or another about your proposal. And while people's individual traits and personalities definitely play a part in their receptivity to your idea, in this lesson and the next one, we'll look at what we know about the people based primarily on the roles they fulfill and the responsibilities they are assigned by the company. You see, organizations aren't as rational and single-minded as you might think they are or think they should be. People working in different departments are assigned goals and responsibilities that sometimes conflict or are at odds with one another. Those different responsibilities cause them to see the world differently from one another. We often think people in other departments are being disagreeable, obstinate, and ornery, or that they just don't get it when they don't agree with us. But in fact, they may be acting as rationally as you or me, but from a different vantage point. The basis of their rationality is the goals, and roles, and tasks that they've been assigned. What I'm describing is Institutionalized Conflict. And it's common to every organization. The irony is that we think the conflict originates in the person who disagrees with us. And we focus our attention, and sometimes our rage, at their individual characteristics. But the source of the conflict really isn't the person we face, but rather the role the organization assigned her. One way to think about it is like this. Say someone from another department almost never agrees with you and seems to do everything in their power to keep you from getting your job done. It's gotten so bad that you can barely tolerate them at work and you've grown to generally dislike the bull-headed, self-centered, you get the idea. Well, then he gets transferred or retires. And you think, thank goodness, now I can finally get things done. But when the new person arrives, she's just as bad as the previous guy. Well, if the person who stands in your way gets replaced and the conflict persists, there's a very good chance the conflict isn't based on the person, but rather the position she holds. And what the organization expects people who hold that position to do, and think, and behave. This seems strange but it actually makes sense, because organizations, especially large ones, are extremely complex. And that size and complexity makes it impossible for any one person or group of people to see the whole picture. Instead, different groups of people are assigned different responsibilities. And from those positions, they see opportunities to make their part of the organization work better. As well as things they think might threaten the viability and long-term success of the firm. Part of everyone's job, and the part that gets you noticed and promoted, is to come up with ways to address threats and tap opportunities you see from your position in the organization. The company wants everyone to be actively looking for ways to make the company run better. But that means there are always more things to invest resources in than there are resources to invest. That's why companies have procedures designed to review all those proposals and decide which to invest in. Part of the budgeting process is to prioritize these often competing requests. Business students are taught to calculate the risk-adjusted discount of present value of each proposal. And we imply that rational decision makers, the strategy makers in your firm, should allocate resources to initiatives that generate the highest return on investment. But, as we've said throughout this specialization, there are hard numbers and softer numbers. And sometimes, it's crucial for the long-term viability of the firm to invest in things where the benefits cannot be quantified. And even when both costs and benefits can be predicted with a high degree of certainty, there can be disagreement about whether the initiative is aligned with, and how well it addresses, the organization's strategic goals. It is because the right course of action is never 100% certain, that organizations expect people assigned to different departments, and have different viewpoints and positions, to advance and advocate for the things they think are most important to their units. And thus, the organization's success. Now, let's return to the tools you can use to assess the lay of the land and start to strategize about how you can gain support for your initiative from the people who may not see the world the same way you do. Interest mapping helps you assess the lay of the land. Stakeholder analysis, which we'll address in the next lesson, helps you to strategize about how to gain support for your initiative. The first step is understanding clearly who is affected by what you want to do, what their interests are, and how much power they have to support your initiative or to block it. Jeff Pfeffer, in his book, Managing with Power, sets out four groups of people and the questions you need to ask to identify them. First, the supporters. Whose cooperation do you need to successfully carry out your proposal? Whose support will be necessary to get the appropriate decisions made and implemented? Next, blockers. Whose opposition could delay or derail what you are trying to do? Third, who are the potential stakeholders? Who will be affected by what you are trying to do in terms of how they do their work, how they are rewarded, and their power or status? Finally, what are the existing coalitions? Who are the friends and allies of the people you've identified as potential supporters and blockers? And what potential interests are at stake for them? The first tool I want you to use as you plan for your proposed change is the commitment chart. It was developed by Beckhart & Harris and addresses the first two sets of questions in Pfeffer's list, the ones about supporters and blockers. In the exercise that follows this lesson, you'll be completing a commitment chart for the initiative you want to propose at your company. First, enter the one sentence description of the initiative you'd like to propose. Then, in the first column, make as complete a listing as you can of the key individuals who will be involved in approving and implementing your proposal. The commitment chart maps their current position with regard to your proposal on a continuum from opposition, hey can keep it from happening, through neutrality, they're likely to let it happen, to two levels of support. Assistance, they can help it happen, and championing, [LAUGH] they can make it happen by putting the full weight of their power, reputation, and resources behind it. The commitment chart really highlights who has power over your proposal. And therefore, who you need to focus on, whose support you can engage and whose current positions you'll need to change, if your efforts are to succeed. To complete the exercise, you just put an X in the box that corresponds to each stakeholder's current position and a checkmark in the box you need or would like them to be in when you formally present the proposal. This seems pretty simple, and it is. For now, it's important to understand the lay of the land. You need to start here in order to complete the more challenging task of devising a communication and influence strategy that will shore up support from your supporters and weaken the resistance from your resistors. Clearly, anyone who can keep it from happening needs to be convinced to at least let it happen. But you don't want to overlook or take other stakeholders for granted, especially those who can possibly help it happen and make it happen. They're the ones you need to develop and implement your communication and persuasion strategy. We'll address that in the next lesson, where you'll complete a stakeholder analysis, mapping each stakeholder's interest and devising a strategy that appeals to them. The stakeholder analysis builds on your work here, so be sure to save a copy of your commitment chart so you can refer to it as you complete the interest analysis and stakeholder analysis exercise in the next lesson.
