Pankaj
Thanks for your reply and indeed the questions: In answer a) - they are
in the same (public) business but with distinct, almost regimental,
cultures and ways of achieving similar ends. Each agency has invested
much over the years in their own identity, mission, values etc and
whilst they do not 'diss' the others (at least publicly!) - they each
believe that their ways are best. And they have the trappings of a
common road map - the beginnings of a programme of projects to
establish various collaborative ways of working - my sense is that they
need more time spent on looking at why they have not progressed as far
as they would have wished to - by now. (Rather than setting up an
administrative system for progress chasing - when I don't think that is
the problem...)
In respect of b) - I am not sure I quite understand. But I think I
would say that the more 'tasky' people just want to get the job done...
and see as purely a managerial task now - rather than (as I see it) a
deeply cultural one that needs to surface the issues about commitment
and allegiances....
Wendy
Many thanks for you reply too - it has helped me to think through what
next to do as well... One of my challenges is that these are are all
deeply controlling and controlled organisations - so the 'Zen' of OS
and good OD - will be something of a challenge to them! What I am
coming round to believing is that they hired me for this practice - not
for being a top down / controlling / centrist manager - I think!
Kerry
I like the idea of throwing the monitoring back onto their shoulders!
Thanks for your contribution also.
All the best
Jon
Pankaj Bhargava wrote:
Hi! Jon
Quite an interesting situation. Have a couple of questions &
thoughts around the same.
a. You say that they share a common concern. Do they also share
a common roadmap to address the common concern. If not then a good
starting point may be an intervention (if they are geographically
dispersed, on line open space may be a good route if they can be
educated on it) to get them to evolve a comon road map to address the
concern. That is likely to reduce the unwanted pressures.
b. What are the underlying conerns that drive those who are
recommending the way they are - what do they fear will not get done by
the current structure. Understanding that & then addressing those
(ideally with the entire group or at least leveraging those who are
close by) may help reduce the concerns & the pressure on you.
Would be glad to explain further what I mean or even have a
dialogue on this if required. I am based in India & my no. is
+91-9820056871
Regards
Pankaj
Hi
all
I have a new job - where my role is to coordinate the collaboration of
a
number of independent but connected agencies - they share a common
concern but are geographically distinct. But they (and the public they
serve) would greatly benefit from closer working between them - either
by creating new joint functions or harmonising their existing
operations. This can and will increase effectiveness and efficiency.
At the moment - I have no team as such beyond a very capable PA and a
chap who has been allocated to me - on a temporary basis. I am three
weeks into this new role. I see my role as helping to create the
conditions into which these sovereign agencies (with some very forceful
people at their helm) feel able and trustful enough so that they cede
some of their autonomy and establish some new (arms length) business
units. To date (before my arrival) - a number of business cases had
been
produced for taking this strategy forward.
My dilemma is this (and your perspectives would be helpful): I am
getting pressure from one (and one other) of the more 'pushy' agencies
to recruit and establish a programme management team that would (in
effect) wrest control of these embryonic collaboration projects away
from the agencies themselves and place it under the mantle of the
regional programme team. The argument being that only with this level
of
'support' and 'drive' would the projects come to fruition. My OD bones
are telling me otherwise - as I think I want to keep the space open -
and have the ownership of the projects resting very firmly with the
agencies themselves - in other words I think they have to own their own
collaboration initiatives (not the central / regional team).
So am I wrong to sticking with my OD intuition?
If not - what should be my arguments for going for a more facilitative
/
hands off and slimmer team - that works in an open and OD way? (We have
a critical meeting next week - and I fear there will be attempts to
bounce me into the more directive programme team model - before I have
had the chance to test the water some more - as the other agencies may
also be thinking the same....)
It's is a bit complex I know - and I know I have also talked in some
oblique code for the sake of confidentiality (I am afraid) - but your
insights would be valuable. I can't think of a bunch of wiser kindred
people than you lot on the OST listserv - who might be able to offer me
some helpful / cogent / challenging advice...
In advance - thanks.
Jon
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected]:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected]:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
*
*
==========================================================
[email protected]
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of [email protected]:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
|
