“Buy-in” versus ownership
By Henri Lipmanowicz.* [*This essay was shared with me by the author, who graciously agreed to have it appear with the “Differences that make a difference” publication. Merci HENRI LIPMANOWICZ]. Version in French is here.
I think it is very, very important to make a clear distinction between buy-in and ownership and not present them as if they were the same or interchangeable. It is important because “buy-in” is what everybody talks about and it more often than not doesn’t work precisely because it is the opposite of ownership.
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 opposite: someone else or some group of people has done the development, the thinking, the cooking and now they have to convince you to come along and implement their idea without you having been invited at the table upfront before the goose was cooked. They decided without you but now they need your buy-in because without you their great ideas and plans can’t get implemented and so are worth nothing. But since you were not part of the process this great idea is a strange one; you cannot fully understand its history or genesis. Since you were not part of the process you cannot be aware of all the other options that were considered and rejected, and of the thinking that went into these choices.
You feel ignored, imposed upon, pushed around, unappreciated and your immune system naturally kicks in to reject this foreign idea. You will look like you agree eventually to this new idea because you have no choice and your masters will cheer believing that you have bought in and that you are now as convinced as they are. Your implementation will inevitably be a pale imitation of what it could have been had you been an owner instead of a “buyer-in” and be truly convinced.
What is wrong with buy-in is the notion that it is perfectly ok for a few to make the decisions and then to impose them on all the others and still expect that they will be willing and able to implement them perfectly as if they had made the decisions themselves. That is a total illusion. It is an illusion that exists because in most organizations there is no evidence showing the difference between what people can accomplish when they implement ideas they developed together versus what happens when they implement ideas that were imposed on them.
Most organizations have no clue about the value of true enthusiasm and true commitment because they have never seen it. And the reason they have never seen it is because they have never created conditions for people to implement ideas they own without reservations. When experts are working very hard at making plans for others (those they consider non-experts) to execute, it is impossible for them to consider, and least of all admit, that enthusiasm and deep understanding by those others (inferior non-experts) could double or triple the impact of their expert ideas. That obviously would defeat their value as experts!!!
Deep understanding can only be achieved by making oneself the journey of discovery and invention. Someone else’s story of the journey will always be a pale imitation of the experience.
If leaders involved UPFRONT all the people that will be involved later on in the implementation there would be no need for buy-in for the simple reason that there would be ownership.
Of course the immediate reaction to such a proposition is that it is ludicrous because it is obviously impossible to involve everybody upfront. Wrong!!! Since it is possible to involve all the people afterwards, it has to be possible to involve them all upfront. And therefore the proper question is not whether but how. There are ways and processes from which to choose depending on the circumstances.
Hence my message is: 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. Reconsider your process before you waste a lot of time and energy or achieve mediocre results. One key is to not separate the development of ideas from the implementation of ideas: the same people should be involved in both and it should be one single integrated process.
My second message is: ANYTIME YOU OR SOMEONE AROUND YOU THINKS OR TALKS ABOUT ‘BEST PRACTICES’ BEWARE! I say this because usually best practices are imported from outside the organization and they can’t be implemented properly without “buy-in.”
“Best practices”, if there is such a thing, do not exist on their own; rather they emerged within a specific context and from interactions within a specific group of people. The notion that one can separate a “best practice” from its context and from the people who developed it, then transport it to another context and a different group of people and have it implemented as in the original setting is obviously a gross oversimplification. It will never be the case; it will always be different even in those cases where the best practice is improved and turned into a “better-best-practice.”
Hence there is a critical process choice to be made when one is considering importing a “best practice.” Will the process be designed to:
- Impose it?
- Achieve “buy-in”?
- Achieve ownership?
There is probably a place and time for each one of those processes to be the most appropriate. The first two are used routinely but clearly the one that needs to be more often considered is the third one, “how to achieve ownership?” In complex situations it is the only one that is likely to generate superior results. It requires giving people space and time for self-discovery.
To conclude, trying to achieve buy-in is most often an attempt to compensate for a problem that should not have been created in the first place, namely the exclusion of all the people whose buy-in is now being sought from the development process. It is a little bit like the need to motivate people; more often than not it is a sign that the real problem is to avoid de-motivating them in the first place.
I have of course oversimplified and exaggerated in order to make my point sharper. Some disagreement and debate around situations when what I wrote doesn’t apply should help in making the whole distinction between buy-in and ownership clearer.
Have fun kicking these ideas around. Your comments are welcome.
Henri
“On n’entend bien qu’avec le coeur, L’essentiel est invisible pour les yeux” [“We only hear well with the heart, The essential is invisible to the eyes”] — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Le Petit Prince
Click here to see the French version of this essay.
