You believe in a good idea. But you can’t make it happen on your own. You need support. You present a plan well. Then, along with thoughtful issues, come confounding questions, inane comments, and verbal bullets. It matters not that the idea is needed, insightful, innovative, and logical. It matters not if the issues involved are extremely important to a business, an individual, or even a nation. The proposal is still shot down, or is accepted but without sufficient support to gain all of its true benefits, or slowly dies a sad death.

It can be maddening. You end up flustered, embarrassed, or furious. All those who would benefit from the idea lose. You lose.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A competent creation and implementation of good ideas is a basic life skill, relevant to the 21 year old college graduate, the 55 year old corporate CEO, and virtually everyone else. This skill, or the lack of it, affects the economy, governments, families, and most certainly our own lives.

The challenge is that the amount of thought and education put into creating good ideas is far higher today than the knowledge and instruction on how to implement those ideas. Field of strategy made huge advances but not the field of strategy implementation!

It is not often the case good ideas can stand on their own. Kotter’s BUY*IN offers a method that can build strong support for a good idea. A method that does not require rhetorical skills or charismatic magic.

Divided into two parts, this wonderful book tells a story in Part 1. And explains the method (saving your good idea, of course) in Part 2.

Give your ideas a chance to be saved. Go ahead, argue a change or a idea to an audience (to your management, team or even general public). Below are few notes I took on:

Four ways to kill a good idea
24 common attacks and how you can respond.

The Characters

Given the way they often behave, here is how the author calls some characters in his story.

Pompus Meani: Values self-importance over doing good. If something will make him seem wiser and more important, he supports it. And if not, he opposes it, sometimes stealthily and sometimes flamboyantly as a show of power. If Pompus sees you as a threat, he wants you to look foolish!

Heidi Agenda: Pompus’s cousin. Has an undisclosed personal reason for opposing the plan — a reason more important to her than fairness or your friendship.

Bendi Windi: Who usually blows with the wind, and may, without really trying to be mean, say your plan is bad just so she can fit in.

Avoidus Riski: Kind and helpful. Can be pretty sharp. Unfortunately, she has not enjoyed a great deal of personal success due to bad breaks and some regrettable decisions. Now, she seems often to be a fearful person, although she hides this feeling.

Spaci Cadetus: A nice person. Most people think she commutes to work each day from her home on Jupiter.

Allis Welli: Never seen a new idea she particularly liked.

Lookus Smarti: After making his case, he usually sits looking smug.

Divertis Attenti: Shouldn’t we be examining our real problems, especially our lack of ..

Blindus Loyalus: Can you guess?

They are all around us. You have seen them many times and you will see them in future. You will encounter them in a meeting, in a attack on your memo, in a telephone call, in your school, or in your own family.

The author has this to say — In some ways, it is a shame we even need a book like this. BUT WE DO!

Four Ways To Kill A Good Idea

Author identifies four ways a good idea is usually killed.

Fear Mongering: This kind of attack strategy is aimed at raising anxieties so that a thoughtful examination of a proposal is very difficult if not impossible. And there are all sorts of ways to create fear. The trick is to start with an undeniable fact and then to spin a tale that ends with consequences that are genuinely frightening or that push the anxiety buttons we all have. Manipulative, but effective! Once aroused, anxieties do not necessarily disappear. Humans are far from being logical creatures! Words often play an important role in these cases. If the failure of Amtek project led to layoffs a few years ago, then the word Amtek will carry meanings that will arouse very unpleasant feelings. In a more general sense, the terms lawyers, fire, or big government can stir up fear and anger in some people.

People use fear-mongering strategies with voices that are beastly or, more often, ones that are oh-so-innocently calm. People can know very clearly what they are doing and why, or they can be completely oblivious to the way they’re acting. One doesn’t have to be an unethical or a self-serving person to use a strategy that raises anxieties and kills off a good idea.

Delay: There are questions and concerns that can kill a good proposal simply by creating a deadly delay. They so slow the communication and discussion of a plan that sufficient buy-in cannot be achieved before cut-off time. They may seem like logical suggestions, but which, if accepted, will make the project miss its window of opportunity.

Death by delay can be a very powerful strategy because it is easy to deploy. A case is made that sounds so reasonable — until some other project is done, send back to committee, wait until next budget cycle. Growing momentum towards buy-in then slows to the point that it can never be regained.

Confusion: “What about, what about, what about?” Some idea-killing questions and concerns muddle the conversation with irrelevant facts, convoluted logic, or so many alternatives that it is impossible to have the clear and intelligent dialog that builds buy-in. Eventually people conclude that the idea has not been well thought out. Or they feel stupid because they cannot follow the conversation (which tends to create anger that can flow back toward the proposal or proposer).

Some individuals can be astonishingly clever at drawing you into a discussion that is so complex that a reasonable person simply gives up and walks away. Many people use them. A confused person might still vote yes, but only to stop the conversation and with no commitment toward making the idea a reality.

Even the simplest of plans can be pulled into a forest of complexity where nearly anyone can become lost. Unconsciously maybe, some people has a need to appear to be the smartest person in the room. And some who just cannot think clearly.

Ridicule (Character Assassination): Some verbal bullets don’t shoot directly at the idea but at the people behind the idea. The proposer may be made to look silly. Questions may be raised about competence. Slyly or directly, questions can be raised about character. Strong buy-in is rarely achieved if an audience feels uneasy with those presenting a proposal.

Questions may be served with a dramatic flourish of indignation, but more often are presented with a light hand. There is a sense that the attacker feels awkward even bringing up a subject, but he nevertheless feels it is his duty to ask whether … No, no, that wasn’t fair. Forget I said that.

The ridicule strategy is used less than others, probably because it can snap back at the attacker. But when this strategy works, there can be collateral damage. Not only is a good idea wounded, and a person’s reputation unfairly tarnished, but all the additional sensible ideas from the proposer might have less credibility, at least until the memory of the attack fades.

Closing: Attacks do not have to be based on only one of these strategies. Clever attacks based on multiple strategies can be very powerful. But the blade cuts both ways.

Twenty Four Attacks

Author lists and discusses those found used most commonly. They all draw on confusion, fear mongering, death by delay, or ridicule and character assassination.

All responses suggested are based on a strategy of being respectful and keeping your comments short, clear, and filled with common sense. They may not silence valid criticism, but will help stop verbal bullets from killing good ideas.

#1 We’ve been successful, why change?!

We’ve never done this in the past and things have always worked out OK.

This is the most fundamental of questions — especially in a setting with no crisis. Most responses can drag into a debate. Best response seems to be something simple, accurate, and basic: essentially, “life evolves, and to continue to succeed, we must adapt.” Everyone knows this fact, and can be gently reminded, if necessary, with well-known examples or more specific ones known by the audience.

True. But surely we have all seen that those who fail to adapt eventually become extinct.

#2 The only problem is money (or some other problem).”

Money is the issue, not (computers, product safety, choice of choir songs, etc).

A money attack is tricky for many reasons. It is almost always a significant issue because resources are always limited. And money easily becomes an emotional issue. Like Attack #1, this can drag into an endless, unhelpful discussion. Before you know it, you can lose control of the discussion.

You need to dispatch money-is-the-real-issue attacks quickly and bring the conversation back to your ideas or plan. One way is with a powerful, and again simple, truth. Examples are everywhere: Steve Jobs working in a garage, Edison without PhD scientists, G Washington with a hugely underfunded army.

Extra money is rarely what builds truly great ventures or organizations.

#3 “You exaggerated the problem.”

You are exaggerating. This is a small issue for us if it is an issue at all.

One basic way to attack the need to deal with any issue is to argue that it is trivial. But, virtually all new ideas are, in one form or another, trying to help people. Saying something is trivial, or a problem is trivial, basically says that those people and their needs, hopes, and pains, are trivial. Reframed that way, this attack usually loses its power and can raise questions about the attacker’s motives rather than yours. And it never hurts to have available the presence or voice of someone whose problems are being implicitly trivialized. Almost anyone can empathize with a cause if confronted with a real live person who has suffered and will benefit from the change.

To the good people who suffer because of this problem, it certainly doesn’t look small.

#4 “You’re saying we’ve failed??!!”

If this is a problem, then what you are telling us is that we have been doing a lousy job. That’s insulting!

Anything that might possibly be interpreted as an attack on the capabilities of others (even if that’s not the case) invites a counterattack. And new ideas can easily seem to suggest that someone isn’t doing his or her job. One effective response to this attack is to reposition either-or with both-can-be-true. More is needed … And the “more,” or at least a part of it, is your idea or proposal.

No, we’re suggesting that you are doing a remarkably good job without the needed tools (systems, methods, laws, etc) which, in our proposal, you will have.

#5 “What’s the hidden agenda?”

It’s clear you have a hidden agenda and we would prefer that you take it elsewhere.

Sometimes it will be subtle and sometimes not. We’ve all seen enough hidden agendas in life that we are all skeptical. You can start your response with a friendly, relaxed “Well, no.” Getting defensive yourself is an easy trap here and very unhelpful. Then work off a simple fact: any good proposal will have some supporters who have good reputations or who are well liked. They are the shields that keep the bullets from doing harm. “Surely you are not suggesting that [highly respected] Barry is lying to us about his motives.” Served lightly and with no disrespect, an honestly skeptical person will think, “Good point,” and back away. And a self-serving schemer will be put in a position where it is hard to press the issue.

Not fair! Just look at the track record of the good folks behind this proposal! (And why would you even suggest such a thing?)

#6 “What about this, and that, and that (etc.)?”

Your proposal leaves too many questions unanswered. What about this and that, and this and that, and…

A common way to shoot down any new idea is to raise dozens of questions, most of which cannot be answered well, because the idea is new and therefore has not been tried before. The attacker may even feign support — “I want this to succeed, which is why you should answer [a million questions] before commencing.” If not death by delay, this tactic is at least death by confusion. The best response in this case is first to gently cut off any attempt by an attacker to hit a crowd with 50 questions. Be appreciative of the concerns (respect!) — because they may seem very logical to the anxious, the risk averse, and the highly skeptical. And then point out another simple truth: all new ideas may raise many more questions than can be answered with certainty. That’s the very nature of a simple new idea or a grand new vision.

All good ideas, if they are new, raise dozens of questions that cannot be answered with certainty.

#7 “No good! It doesn’t go far enough” (or, “It goes too far”)

Your proposal doesn’t go nearly far enough.

These are common attacks. An effective response in either case will present several ideas. (1) Good, we agree there is a problem. (2) I’m glad to see that we agree that the direction proposed is in fact the right direction. (3) So, lets get started at least. (4) If the proposal goes too far, we will see that at some point and slow down and stop. We (including you, Mr Attacker) are smart enough to do this. (5) If it doesn’t go far enough, this too, will be eventually clear. We will then do whatever needed in keeping the effort going.

Maybe, but our idea will get us started moving in the right direction, and do so without further delay.

#8 “You have a chicken and egg problem.”

You can’t do A without doing B, yet you can’t do B without doing A. So the plan won’t work.

Problems can seem unsolvable when framed as the chicken or egg. So you are stuck. No sensible action is possible. It helps greatly to anticipate this problem in advance and to start working on the solution before an attack can come to you. Almost always, the answer is to push along two or more activities at the same time. So you don’t even try to embark upon and finish some single activity.

Well actually, you can do a little bit of A which allows a little bit of B which allows more A which allows more of B, and so on.

#9 “Sounds like ‘[something most people dislike] killing puppies’ to me!”

Your plan reminds me of a thing disgusting and terrible (insert totalitarianism, organized crime, insanity, or dry rot…)

Comparing an excellent plan to something unconnected and undesirable will stick to our minds and therefore, do harm. Worse, you can do even more harm by overreacting. So quickly dismiss the comparison for what it is. Then replace a harmful image with one that is undeniably compelling, simple, and attractive — so it helps, again, to have one prepared in advance. “Is there another question or concern?” And you move on.

Look, you know it isn’t like that. A realistic comparison might be…

#10 “You’re abandoning our core values.”

You are abandoning our traditional values.

This can be a challenging attack. If you say our traditional values no longer matter, there is no win here. An effective response is based on a simple insight. Much more often than not, a really good idea upholds key values in the face of change.

This plan is essential to uphold our traditional values.

#11 “It’s too simplistic to work.”

Surely you don’t think a few simple tricks will solve everything?

At some point, a few simple components of your plan may seem to stand out and, to some, may seem to “be” your plan. Opponents can seize on this. So they say, correctly, that those few elements are too simplistic to solve the problem. So, you say something like “That’s undoubtedly true, but that is not what we are proposing. It’s a combination of the ….”

No — it’s the combination of your good work and some new things that, together, can make a great advance.

#12 “No one else does this!”

If this is such a great idea, why hasn’t it been done already?

If you are asking for something risky or very expensive, the response may not work. Sometimes the added line is just, How do you know? The world is a very big place, and someone could be implementing your idea … If the attacker is being aggressively nasty, you can take your response to the point that it suggests the attacker seems to be insulting your Org, community or group. “You are saying that we/you have no capacity to innovate? To ever do anything on the leading edge? That we/you must forever meekly follow others? Frankly, that sounds sort of insulting to me.” Of course, if you know you will be hit with this attack, go look for some person or company who has used your idea (or something close) before.

There really is a first time for everything and we do have a unique opportunity.

#13 “You can’t have it both ways!”

Your plan says X and Y, but they are incompatible. You can’t have both!

Often, someone will distort two things you have said to build an apparent contradiction. Best response is to be understanding, and gently point out the error.

Actually, we didn’t say X or Y — although, I grant you, it may have sounded that way. We said A and B, which are not incompatible.

#14 “Aha! You can’t deny this!”

I’m sorry — you mean well, but look at this problem you’ve clearly missed! You can’t deny the significance of this issue!

“This” is the “gotcha” problem. It usually has an element of undeniable truth and is often deliberately kept secret from you so it can be used to embarrass you at the worst moment. Caught off guard, you can be left stumbling, which is what the attacker wants. But there is an effective response that will work virtually all the time.

No one can deny the significance of the issue you have raised, and, yes, we haven’t explored it. But every potential problem we have found so far has been readily solved. So in light of what has happened again and again and again, I am today confident that this new issue can also be handled, just like all the rest.

#15 “To generate all these questions and concerns, the idea has to be flawed.”

Look at how many different concerns there are! This can’t be good!

Too many concerns can be the sign of a real problem. But more often, this tactic is used as a means to kill a plan. The best response, is again, a simple truth.

Actually, many the questions mean we are engaged, and an engaged group both makes better decisions and implements them more successfully.

#16 “Tried it before — didn’t work.”

We tried that before and it didn’t work.

Someone can claim that a plan with essentially the same characteristics was tried some time ago and failed, thus proving that your plan is doomed. It doesn’t hurt, as a part of your preparation, to learn about earlier similar efforts. When hit with the attack, you acknowledge the similarities and then point out, if it is a good idea now, either the plan is different or the situation has changed or, more likely, both. Going into great detail to explain your point is a trap. So point to what cannot be argued: times change and the situation today in inevitably different. It really is that simple … so keep it simple.

That was then. Conditions inevitably change [and what we propose probably isn’t exactly what was tried before]

#17 “It’s too difficult to understand.”

Too many of our people will never understand the idea and, inevitably, will not help us make it happen.

Tricky thing about this attack is that the attacker can pose as your ally. She loves your plan and wants it to happen, but sadly, the “others” will misunderstand and that’s that. The truth is that almost anyone can understand an idea if time is spent explaining it clearly and simply. Yes, an incompetent communication effort can bog down the effort. You might say, “Since you agree that the plan is good, then of course it’s worth the effort to communicate it.” “Our people are smarter than you might think.”

Not a problem. We will make the required effort to convince them. It’s worth the effort to do so.

#18 “Good idea, but this is not the right time.”

Good idea, but it’s the wrong time. We need to wait until this other thing is finished (or this other thing is started, or the situation changes in a certain special way).

This is often a ploy in which the opponent pretends to like your plan, but at the right time — which is not now. But death by delay is so common. “We already have 24 projects!” A good response is, “You make an excellent point. No one can handle 24 projects well. We need to weed out and stop all of those that aren’t good as this plan and do so immediately.”

The best time is almost always when you have people excited and committed to make something happen. And that’s now.

#19 “It’s just too much work to do this.”

This seems too hard! I’m not sure we are up for it.

This attack can be powerful when people are genuinely feeling overworked and underpaid (not a rare problem these days). While worthwhile endeavours may be hard, often they don’t feel that way because their value gives us strength. From feeling tired to feeling inspired.

Hard can be good. A genuinely good new idea, facing time consuming obstacles, can both raise our energy level and motivate us to eliminate wasted time.

#20 “Won’t work here, we’re different!”

It won’t work here because we are so different.

This ploy is frequently used because it has face-validity. We are all different. The best response is never to argue that point but to make another observation. As with all effective responses, a simple example, with which an audience can easily relate, is helpful. “But obviously we face the same financial and time pressures as our competitors, we pay the same taxes, we sell to the same customers, we use the same accounting systems.”

Yes it’s true, we’re different, but we are also very much the same.

#21 “It puts us on a slippery slope.”

You’re on a slippery slope leading to a cliff. This small move today will lead to disaster tomorrow.

A good response to this attack is a counterexample with which people can obviously relate. “We now let a 10-year old have access to material that we would never have allowed a century ago. That does not mean we let a 10-year old drive a car.” You can respectfully remind people that good Orgs maintain standards, through their steadfast values, judgement and wisdom. This allows you to point out, “And we are a very good Org.” Will the attacker argue with that?

Good groups of people — all the time– use common sense as a guard rail to keep them from sliding into disaster.

#22 “We can’t afford this.”

The plan may be fine but we cannot do it without new sources of money.

Here, the critic acknowledges that there is both a problem and a sensible solution. The simple answer here is, sure we can: we can reprioritize, we can borrow, we can beg. The fact is, in many many cases where a new idea has been carried out well, the money had to be found. It wasn’t just sitting there.

Actually, most important changes are achieved without new sources of money.

#23 “You’ll never convince enough people.”

It will be impossible to get unanimous agreement with this plan.

Here it’s suggested that no matter how the good idea is explained, there are some people in this org who will simply never agree. Best response is easy.

You are absolutely right. That’s almost never possible, and that’s OK.

But never forget, a mere 51% raising their hands will almost never get the job done. The bigger the idea, the more people you need to buy in and do so with enthusiasm.

#24 “We’re simply not equipped to do this.”

We don’t really have the skills or credentials to pull this off!

All the time, groups do not have all the skills or credentials required to implement a good idea. But they have some of them. And they somehow find a way to identify and eventually attract the rest.

We have much of what we need and we can and will get the rest.

All the best!

Don’t scheme to keep potential opponents, even the sneakiest attackers, out of the discussion. Let them in. Let them shoot at you. Even encourage them to shoot at you.
Don’t try to overcome attacks with tons of data; logic and yet more logic; or lists of reasons why unfair, uninformed, or sneaky attacks are wrong, wrong, wrong. Instead, do what might seem to be the opposite.
Don’t try to crush attackers with ridicule, counterattacks, or condescension, even when it seems as though people deserve it, even when a part of you really wants to do just that, and you have the skills to do so.
Don’t focus on the attacker and his or her unfair, illogical, or mean argument (though it will be extremely tempting to do so).
Don’t try to wing it, even if you know all of the facts thoroughly, even if the idea seems bulletproof, and even if you expect a friendly audience.

The method in a simple summary, is this:

Gain people’s attention by allowing the attackers in and letting them attack
Then win the minds of the relevant, attentive audience with simple, clear and common sense responses
Win their hearts by, most of all, showing respect
Consistently monitor the people whose hearts and minds you need – the broad audience, not the few attackers
Prepare for these steps in advance, with the ideas in this book