A Followup to “15 Objections” - 120 More
Dec 5, 2008 Social Learning SIG
Before I presented at DevLearn I posted the objections in my presentation to a forum and to try to get some new perspectives. Just today someone added a list he uses. They are particularly true and I swear I have heard them all. Thought you might enjoy them…
120 Ways to Deter Innovation
Which ones do you use?
1. The savings are only peanuts.
2. That’s beyond our responsibilities.
3. That’s Joe’s job, not mine!
4. Not enough help.
5. It’s against company policy.
6. We don’t have the authority.
7. Have you gone through proper channels ?
8. Lets get back to reality.
9. Can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
10. Good thought, but impractical.
11. Let’s think about it some more.
12. Management would never go for that.
13. The client won’t like it.
14. They won’t hold still for that.
15. Let’s put it in writing.
16. We’ll be the laughing stock.
17. Not that again!
18. Weld lose money in the long run.
19. We did all right without it.
20. Where’ d you dig that one up.
21. It’s never been tried.
22. Let someone else try it first.
23. That’s been tried before.
24. What’s the use?
25. Not enough time.
26. Too hard to sell.
27. I don’t see the connection.
28. It’s not practical.
29. What you are really saying is . .
30. It leaves me cold.
31. It won’t stand up.
32. Let’s all sleep on it.
33. You’re right, but . . .
34. I’m not convinced.
35. We’ve tried that before.
36. We’ve always done it this way.
37. It won’t work.
38. We can’t pay for the tools.
39. It costs too much.
40. If I thought it’d work, I’d have used it.
41. It’s not in the budget.
42. Where will the money come from?
43. You can’t do that!
44. You should know better.
45. We’re not ready for that.
46. This isn’t the right time for it.
47. We’re not considering hardware yet.
48. Everybody does it this way.
49. Too academic.
50. Not timely.
51. It’s a gimmick.
52. It isn’t progressive.
53. Not for us.
54. Too hard to administer.
55. No good!
56. Plain stupid.
57. Screwy.
58. Too radical.
59. Too complicated.
60. The idea is unsound.
61. It isn’t feasible.
62. Too difficult.
63. Impossible!
64. Production won’t accept it.
65. We can’t hold up production for that
66. Engineering won’t approve it.
67. My Boss won’t like it.
68. I can’t see it.
69. Too much trouble to get started.
70. So what? We’re making a profit!
71. We don’t have the manpower.
72. We haven’t time for detail.
73. The design is frozen.
74. Schedule won’t allow any plans.
75. Who is going to do it?
76. Takes too much time.
77. We don’t do it that way here.
78. Our product is different.
79. Too much work.
80. It won’t apply to our problem.
81. Don’t move too fast.
82. It will set a precedent.
83. Not enough background.
84. Why can’t we do it another way ?
85. We’ve got something just as good now.
86. Don’t be ridiculous.
87. We know all this . . .
88. I’m too busy to decide now.
89. We haven’t enough facts.
90. What about the directive?
91. That will take two years to test.
92. It will make present equipment obsolete.
93. It’s not permitted by specifications.
94. It’s not according to standard changes.
95. We’ll come back to it later.
96. Let’s form a committee.
97. Cost doesn’t matter.
98. Why change it - it works.
99. We can’t help it - it’s policy.
100. Forget cost - just get it out.
101. The way we’re doing it is best.
102. Why?
103. Runs up our overhead.
104. That’s too “ivory tower.”
105. What do our competitors do?
106. What can we expect from the staff?
107. Has anyone else ever tried it ?
108. It won’t work in our industry.
109. It won’t work in my department.
110. No, no, no.
111. Too theoretical.
112. Personnel aren’t ready for this.
113. The users won’t go for it.
114. Its new.
115. We have too many projects now.
116. We don’t want to do this now.
117. It’s not standard stock.
118. We don’t have enough volume.
119. Let’s shelve it for the time being.
120. Could a vendor supply this for less ?
Tags: 15 objections, objections
Objection #7: The Information is Wrong!
Jun 10, 2008 Social Learning SIG, Wiki
Objection #7 is a big concern. “What if people put in information that is wrong? When it went through the training department, we knew it was right. But we can’t trust that when anyone can put in everything.”
Answer: With Social Learning, if it is wrong 1) then everyone will be wrong (it sounds goofy, but there is something to consistency); 2) you know where to fix it (and it is in one place, hidden or in 15 different places); 3) anyone can fix it because the technology is the easy part.
“BUT,” you say, “if anyone can fix it, anyone can mess it up!” That is the great part of this! I can mess up whatever I touch but there are certain controls you can put on it so that when it is changed, anyone can be notified. This is a check and balance.
Again, as in previous objections, the information is already circulating, except you don’t have any visibility into what is said. Now you do.
I had a chat with someone last month who said this: “One additional thing that holds our group back (from adopting this) is that there were some very bad experiences a few years ago… it’s critical in our business to get the information CORRECT - if old info causes data loss it’s a very, very bad thing.”
On critical information you can control it. For example, we lock down HR documents, as I have previously explained. No none can change them except for those in HR. Locking down information should be used judiciously. Also, there are only certain documents and discussions that Management can see. Others don’t even know they are there.
So it is not that you are giving up total control, but that you are expanding the circle of trust.
(image attributed to http://blogs.sun.com/identity)
Tags: information, objections, security
Objection #6: Mixing Things Up
Jun 9, 2008 Social Learning SIG
Objection #6 is another one of those silent but deadly objections because, again, not many people come out and verbalize this, but it is prominent. “This is disruptive!”
Answer: On so many levels you are right. Within an organization who knows little about this, you (the person who is introducing this) needs to have a tough skin and understand the “WHY”s behind what he/she is doing. You better have an answer for everything - or at least a path for the person asking the question to find the answer through experiential discovery.
There will be those who become really upset with you. Others will despise you when they didn’t before (I learned this from personal experience). Others will be more laissez faire. Very few others will understand what you are trying to do. Either way, your immediate popularity will probably go down. If you are OK with this, continue on.
But the cultural aspect of this is disruptive. Think about it: With social learning there is a possibility that you will have an effect on not only how the training department runs, but also HR, internal communications, processes, projects, meetings, external communications and marketing - all in form and function. This is threatening to many people because it takes them out of what they see right now as “working just fine.”
But after they all understand, you will be a genius.
Tags: disruptive, objections
Objection #5: How Do You Know it’s Accurate?
Jun 6, 2008 Social Learning SIG, Wiki
Objection #5 is one of the most heard objections. Very famous. “If you let everyone post how do you know it is accurate? What if it is not and the receiver acts on it and something bad happens? It is certainly not as accurate as the training department getting information from the SMEs and delivering it to the employees.”
Answer: Uhhhh, says who? First of all, if you let everyone post anything how do you know it is accurate? You don’t. Plain and simple - you don’t know that. So how can you trust it? How can you trust an email you sent to someone is returned with the correct information? How do you know if, when you ask a question of someone over the cube wall, that they are not wrong? You don’t. You have to trust it. Same here.
I guess that is taking the pessimistic view of it, but really, let’s think about it.
Story Time
I recently heard a story about a company who was looking at putting in these type of tools. There was one person who was, for the most part against it and had this concern. She didn’t think that the information on there would be accurate if they let everyone post instead of the SMEs (the experts). Leaving the meeting she walked by some cubes where she overheard one person describing an HR policy to the other person that was completely incorrect. And the second person took it as gospel.
She suddenly realized, 1) How many times does this happen and I don’t know about it? 2) If they asked this question using the tools we were talking about, more people would be able to respond and the right answer would surface; 3) The SMEs would have seen this and could have made sure that the information was correct. Instead of information going from SME -> Trainer -> employee, it goes right from SME -> Employee. No middle man.
That is for Black and White. What if the matter is more of opinion? Many people can chime in and give their opinions and decisions could be made more accurately because of the quality of information they received.
Alright. I know Wikipedia is not the greatest comparison to using a wiki in an organization, but here is one of many studies done on the validity of wikipedia. And the principle still applies in organizations as well.
What have you seen?
Tags: accuracy, objections, wikipedia
Objection #4: Posting Anything, Including Bonobos
Jun 5, 2008 Social Learning SIG
Objection #4 comes from those who are nervous about what content is posted. “We can just let ANYONE post ANYTHING!”
Answer: Why not? What are you afraid of? This isn’t said in a condescending way, but really - What are you afraid of? That someone will post something in appropriate? Too late. Already happens (happened). The only difference is that you didn’t have any visibility into it.
Story time
When we launched our internal environment there were a few people who started a forum discussion. A couple days into it one person posted something that was inappropriate. You could hear the crickets for the next few hours. As soon as others saw it, I was pulled in seperately by our head of HR and by the president of the company with the same question, “What are we going to do?” My response was, “Nothing. Sit tight and let it play out.” Thankfully they did hold it. And you know what? All was well.
Those involved in the discussion took care of it themselves. Management wasn’t sent an email with yet another employee skirmish we needed to be in the middle of. We didn’t do a thing. They took care of it. Not only did we not do anything but we had the added benefit of watching it happening and having visibility into something that would have taken place in the confined area of email.
We have had conversations about bonobos, about tomatoes being a fruit or a vegetable, about the first day of Spring. But everyone was trying it out. Now discussions are around how internal processes work, how to use different tools, when creating a goal what does S.M.A.R.T. really mean, and how to receive personal faxes through the phone system. We are learning. From each other.
Let the conversations happen. Even if they seem frivolous at first. Let them get to know something foreign using familiar subjects. When they are comfortable with the tools they will really start to use them correctly. And let them police themselves. Not that you shouldn’t keep an eye on what is going on, but don’t be too quick to call someone out. Better from peers than management.
Tags: bonobos, objections, posting
Objection #1: Socialize!
Jun 2, 2008 Learning 2.0
Objection #1: The president of your company objects to using social media tools to facilitate the learning between employees: “All they will do is socialize!”
Answer: If that is what they do, then the wrong people have been hired. If they want to socialize they will do it anyway! In fact, they are doing it now. How? Emails (personal and business). They are the ones who take extra long breaks - the ones who catch someone in the hall and gab an inappropriate amount of time. They use instant messaging (in and out of the firewall). They email jokes.
If you have some that socialize too much then, they are doing it now. Those who work hard will use the tools correctly. Now I must say that some socializing isn’t all bad. In fact it is healthy. But it is agreed that it must be on an appropriate levevl. And most people are good about that.
So that is one answer, but that actually isn’t the answer I would give at first. The primary answer to this one has to do with personal vs. organizational usage. For example, Wikipedia is a great example of how a wiki works in real life, but not the best example of how it is used in the workplace. It IS different. Just as MySpace and Facebook are social tools in personal lives, they are not the best examples of how people interact within an organization assuming they have similar tools (granted, there are some companies that use Facebook internally, but those companies are rare and those companies are not throwing up this objection).
Most organizational tools aren’t as social as the previous examples. For example, you can’t poke another person. There normally is not a status update. There isn’t usually a spot to post your own pictures or videos on your profile page - or completely customize your profile page. Those type of things are either severely limited or non-existent in corporate tools. (Caveat: I must say here that these things are not bad or wrong, but when used correctly they can have a positive impact. But the audience I am addressing, at this point, isn’t ready to hear that.)
What do you think? What would you say?
Tags: objections, socialize
