This post attracted my attention for several reasons, but I'm having trouble understanding the flow and finding the point.<p>* <i>Well.. here’s an interesting solution:</i><p>What follows appears not to be a solution - it's a story.<p>* <i>When organizations make decisions that their people need, you have multiple advantages.</i><p>I don't understand this at all. I can nearly make some sense of it by reading the next paragraph ...<p>* <i>People are naturally inclined with the decision, and its easier to motivate people to make it more effective. On the other side, when decisions are taken without considering the people, they mostly fall flat on their faces.</i><p>But where are the multiple advantages? Why do <i>I</i> have advantages? I really don't understand what you're trying to say.<p>* <i>It is also important to cultivate a culture of discussing important things.</i><p>Chicken and egg. Things will get discussed if and only if people think they're worth discussing, but for some things, you don't realise they're worth discussing until you've discussed them. You've stated the obvious, but have offered no solution (as yet - I read on, waiting to see if there are any practical suggestions)<p>* <i>The change wouldn’t have to be made from management side only,</i><p>What change?<p>* <i>the employees are as much responsible for the decisions as the managers.</i><p>That's an interesting statement.<p>* <i>Once you have people expressing their opinions in a much clearer format and are debated on various forums, its easier to understand the pulse of the organization. Hence the decision-making process improves.
This is one of the best ways to affect decisions in a democratic way.</i><p>Wait - you're advocating having decisions driven by discussions involving how many people? If you can't get the decision makers to care, how will you get enough ground-swell to make them care?<p>It seems to me that there's a hint of an interesting idea here, but I can't really find it. I wish I could - perhaps you could write a more careful piece.<p>ADDED IN EDIT<p>In thinking about it further, it seems like you're saying this:<p>* Decisions don't get made by management unless they discuss the issues<p>* they don't discuss the issues if they have no interest in them<p>* They won't get any interest in the issues unless they hear and see the employees talking about them<p>* Therefore, get the employees talking about things,<p>* therefore the managers will notice,<p>* therefore they'll discuss them,<p>* therefore decisions will be made.<p>The chain is faulty. Getting employees talking is neither necessary nor sufficient. It's not necessary because sometimes one of the managers will be interested. It's not sufficient, because even if the employees are talking about things, the managers may <i>still</i> not care.<p>In any organisation of sufficient hierarchical depth, the only way employees can get managers to make decisions is by getting the "on board" and acting as advocates.<p>Discussion on forums, <i>etc,</i> is a great way for managers to make employees think they (the employees) are having an influence, and that they (the managers) care.