Sand in the Machinery

Inevitably, sand gets into the machinery, and everything grinds a little more! Cervero and Wilson's readings on power are always at the forefront now, as we try to manoeuver the project through the gauntlet of competing interests at various levels of both institutions.

As I explained to someone recently, this is the stage of the project where vision meets reality. The vision was created by a group of people sitting in an office who had a "great idea", but were unfamiliar enough with the details of program planning that they didn't do certain kinds of necessary people prep, that strategic smoothing of the waves that can be done ahead of time to ensure the key stakeholders are on the same page. Nor did they allocate enough resources, as is so common.

So, it's "after the fact" planning, a kind of reactive working process that results in fits and starts in progress. The project is definitely moving forward, and the right people are being brought on board as necessary, but instead of being a gentle forward rolling motion, it's like stop signs on a race track: hurry up, screech to a halt, hurry up, screech ... people get anxious or upset, and THEN the necessary prep work gets done, instead of foreseeing some of the issues. Of course, some of the snags we've hit are the result of intentional exclusion by someone at some level, perhaps because they're power hungry or difficult to work with. This is where program planning becomes completely unpredictable and "manageable". This is where the power dynamics come in. You CAN only react and respond and solve the problems as they emerge (hence the idea of emergent program planning). Ie. there sometimes there is no planning, only responding.

What it means for the program planner is that the diplomatic function of the job comes out. The planner needs to connect people, build bridges, negotiate politics, feed information back and forth to make the end result happen, even when those elements wouldn't be able to connect on their own. in effect, it's the planner's job to remind everyone of the larger purpose, the development of the program, which presumably addresses a particular learning need.

I'm thankful I have such a great steering committee. The right people are on that committee, for sure. Only one person adds a competitive tone that's counter productive at times, but that seems to be managed reasonably well by the group as a whole. Likewise, her staff are fearful of losing something, and can't see the project as an opportunity to gain, when it really is a complete win-win program in the long term. That will require a better understanding of their history as a unit, and perhaps a better understanding of the individual psychologies that are reacting with fear instead of excitement.

In the meantime, the one person who completely trusts my work and is able to get things moving is the absolute magic ingredient in this. She and I work together extremely well, even though we're so different in working style and approach. Without her on this committee, my work would be difficult and at times impossible. She serves the function of a constant ice-breaker, moving ahead of me, clearing the way, getting funds, affirming the vision, aligning the power players so that I can just do my work and feed her the information she needs to make her part happen.

In a few days, I'll know whether we're going big or going home. It'll depend a lot on her meetings with her contacts. If we go big, we'll be launching into industry focus groups and developing a fascinating new program that will be the first of its kind in Canada. We'll see which way it goes.