Ownership, Not Buy-in We need to move from buy-in to ownership

One of the most significant mistakes we often commit when striving to initiate change is trying to enforce things upon others.

We identify problems, create visions, manifestos, strategies, and plans to implement so-called solutions (there are no solutions to complex problems), and then try to “sell the solution” and the means to implement that solution to people.

We seek “buy-in,” but by and large, we get cynicism and resistance.

It is not necessarily that we are tackling the wrong problems or are taking the wrong approach. It is that we are trying to do things to each other.

We should not look for “buy-in” but for “ownership,” which means involving people from the start of any change initiative.

Everyone should be involved in identifying the problems and developing a response to them. This is best exemplified, for example, by taking an open approach to strategy development.

This way, everyone feels ownership and is more intrinsically motivated. They naturally take responsibility and are thus more engaged and committed to the agreed course of action.

Ownership is when you own or share the ownership of an idea, a decision, an action plan, a choice.

It means that you have participated in its development; that it is your choice freely made.

Buy-in is the exact opposite.

Someone else, or some group of people, has done the development, the thinking and the deciding, and now they have to convince you to come along and buy-in to their idea — so that you can implement their idea without your involvement in the initial conversations or resulting decisions.

Aiming for buy-in creates lukewarm, pallid implementation and mediocre results.

When it comes to solving intractable socio-technical behavioral problems in systems the notion of buy-in is just not useful – people in the system need to own the new behaviors.

Anytime you or someone around you thinks or talks about buy-in, beware!

It is a danger signal telling you that your development and implementation process is missing the essential ingredient of involving all who should be involved.

Credit: Group Jazz: Engaging Everyone with Liberating Structures

Compliance is quite different from contribution.

Organized bureaucracies thrive on compliance. It makes it easier to tell people what to do.

But contribution is the only way that tribes thrive, the best way to make change happen and the essence of being part of a community.

It’s a shame that we spend so much time teaching our children (and our employees) to comply.

Far better to seek out contribution instead.

Credit: Seth Godin

To spark real change, we must move from seeking “buy-in” to fostering “ownership.” Rather than imposing solutions, we need to involve people from the start so they feel intrinsically motivated to contribute. When people are engaged as valued partners in the process, they will bring energy and dedication to making positive change happen. The path forward is about inclusion, not imposition.

Tweet This

• To nurture community, we need to move from buy-in to ownership
• One of the biggest mistakes we make when trying to instigate change in an organization is to attempt to change other people

Resources

• Article: Why ‘buy-in’ is the wrong way to think about change

Posts that link to this post

•  We Must Stop Trying to Do Things to Each Other And encourage engagement and ownership
•  We Need to Stop Trying to Do Things to Each Other And start working together
•  Measures, Targets, Rewards and Punishments When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure
•  I. Take Responsibility We can choose to take responsibility for the changes we wish to see in the world

POST NAVIGATION

CHAPTER NAVIGATION

SEARCH