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

Organizations often design change through strategies and plans, then seek buy-in from those expected to implement them. But this approach can lead to cynicism, resistance, and superficial compliance. Genuine commitment develops when people have opportunities to shape what happens, take responsibility, and work things out together.

We identify problems, create visions, manifestos, strategies, and plans to implement so-called solutions (there are no solutions to complex problems), and then attempt to sell those solutions and the means to implement them to others.

We seek “buy-in,” but too often we get cynicism, resistance, and superficial compliance.

The problem may not be what we are trying to achieve, but how we are going about it. We are trying to do things to each other rather than working things out together.

Instead of seeking “buy-in,” we should be creating the conditions for genuine “ownership.”

But ownership is not something we can give people or persuade them to accept. It develops when they have a meaningful opportunity to influence what happens.

This means involving those affected by change in identifying problems, exploring possibilities, and developing responses. It does not mean everyone must be involved in every decision, but that people should have a genuine voice in shaping changes that affect them.

One example is taking an open approach to strategy development, where strategy emerges through wider participation and conversation rather than being developed by a few and imposed on the many.

When people help shape what happens, they are more likely to feel a sense of ownership and become intrinsically motivated to contribute. They are more willing to take responsibility and become genuinely engaged and committed.

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

Change is not something we do to others. It emerges through what we do together. Rather than seeking buy-in for decisions already made, we need to create opportunities for people to shape what happens, take responsibility, and move forward together.

Resources

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