Ive been a practicing consultant (internal and external) for almost 30
years.
I like to think I know a little about ownership, buy-in, commitment, etc.,
especially in the context of a consulting engagement. I also like to think
that weve done a pretty good job here at ETS in the way of building
support for and commitment to the use of system dynamics modeling. Even
more important, I like to think that our SD modeling efforts here have
produced solid, substantial value for several stakeholder groups. So, Ill
toss in a few comments regarding the terms in the subject line of this
message. First, however, a word or two about "ordinary discourse."
Ordinary discourse is, in a word, "slippery." We tend to use terms like
buy-in, ownership, and commitment as though they are interchangeable and,
for many conversations, thats okay. For others it is not.
In ordinary discourse, we are often flitting from peak to peak, from
concept to concept, from idea to idea, without ever descending into the
devils residence, that is, the details. Why? Because oftentimes we are
talking or, as some now say, "conversating," but not with an eye toward
action. When the prospect of action rears its head, descent into the
details is unavoidable.
Back now to consulting and terms like buy-in, commitment, ownership, etc.
Ownership, as John Gunkler observes, refers to some kind of proprietary
interest and John wisely checks for it through listening for words such as
mine, ours, yours, theirs, etc. Ownership, as others have pointed out, is
also a buzzword used by more than one consultant to refer to a quality or
characteristic that is often (but not always) essential to successful
intervention but that, often as not, reduces to little more than some tacky
devices providing the illusion of participation. (My wife, for example,
recently attended a meeting where the consultants made a great show of
soliciting input but studiously avoided writing down any of it on the easel
sheets. Finally, the group clammed up. When the consultant asked what
happened, my wife explained it to him in a brutally honest way.)
Buy-in, to me, refers to a related but different phenomenon. Buy-in occurs
when someone decides to support an effort, a program, a goal. A sense of
ownership is not necessary for buy-in to occur (although, a sense of
ownership can occur among those who buy in and actively support an
initiative--it is not inevitable because those who buy in can also opt out
later on and sometimes do).
Commitment precedes buy in, or so I think, and can be strengthened through
participation and involvement. These latter two terms warrant an
explanation of their own. Participation and involvement are often pictured
as the means of achieving buy-in, commitment, and ownership and,
appropriately effected, indeed they are. However, all too often (as in the
case of the consultant cited above), participation and involvement are
little more than sham, pretense, and ritual.
Participation and involvement, to my way of thinking, entails the
opportunity for the participants to significantly affect the course of
events and thus the outcomes of an initiative. Absent this real
opportunity to influence matters, participation and involvement are mere
games that consultants--and managers and execs and politicians and parents
and just about everyone else plays.
Years ago, the fellow who hired me at ETS revealed that one of his reasons
for doing so was that, in his eyes, I "had an unusual knack for getting the
little people to go along with the program." Later, another fellow, my
boss, proudly announced that he had figured out how I did that. "You dont
just listen," he said, "you act on what people tell you." Said a little
differently, the way you gain influence over others is to give others
influence over you.
So, words like "ownership," "buy-in," "commitment," "involvement" and
"participation" can be empty and signify very little or they can refer to
very real aspects of successful interventions. Most important, as Marc
Abrams has been pointing out, and Lawrence and Lorsch pointed out many
years ago, "Organizations dont do things, people do."
Enlisting support for system dynamics, and developing the consulting and
intervention skills of system dynamicists are important undertakings.
Without them, SD will go nowhere.
So, although these concepts and their manifestation in practice might not
be directly tied to the technical aspects of SD, they are most assuredly
central to its social, political, and financial aspects.
Gee, I guess Ill climb down off my soap box now.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service [09-C]
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077 Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail = fnickols@ets.org
Views expressed are the authors, not ETSs.