A new meaning for “hot site”

Dear Bob …

I’m a worker bee who evolved into the technology person here at the medium-sized non-profit organization where I work. It’s time to redo our webpage. It’s a responsibility formerly entirely my own, but for this iteration I’ve decided a little input from each department would be wise.

My gosh, I can’t even begin to describe how this project, supposedly coordinated by yours truly, has turned into such a political hot potato. A Department Head (a woman who outranks me) is insisting on every feature included on her ‘wishlist,’ which wound up being not a list of desired content as I had requested, but a sketch of what she wants ‘her page’ to look like.

It’s beyond all reason, good taste, and the ADA, but hey, what do I know? I’m the person this institution invested in to attend numerous workshops and presentations for web design and accessibility. So it’s a case of seniority vs. expertise, as to who has final editorial say over the pages.

It’s my boss, of course. And since his life is being made into a living hell by this Department Head, he’s going to want to make her happy. If no one else is complaining about the website redesign process, then the only voice he hears is that Department Head.

So even though the rhetoric (and by golly, the mission statement) states that we exist to serve the needs of our patrons, the ‘reality’ is that we must preserve the pecking order of the organization.

Is there a better way to correctly engage my coworkers in this project, to lessen their fear of losing control, educate them as to what it takes to achieve the goal of a well-designed public site, allows me to bend and become less strident, and cements the relationships as well?

– Lost in the Stacks

Dear Lost …

Sounds like you’ve been doing all the right things. a few more steps and you should be home.

The first: Prepare three mock-ups for the revised site design. One should be as pure a rendition of your problem manager’s wish list as possible. The others should be reasonable.

Second: Develop a list of criteria to be used in deciding among the designs. Nothing too complicated; also not blazingly obvious regarding how it would isolate the offending design as a bad idea.

Third: Schedule a meeting of all decision-makers – your problem manager, her peers, and your boss. In the meeting notice, include the criteria (“my understanding of what’s most important; our first agenda item will be to finalize these and establish weightings of importance”). Also in the notice, let everyone know that among the stakeholders are some fairly sharp differences of opinion regarding the site design, so everyone should be prepared to discuss the key issues and drive to consensus regarding the final design.

Then, facilitate the meeting. If anyone suggests that you should be the arbiter, let them know, tactfully, that you’re the implementer, and you can’t implement until the organization has established a clear direction – that’s what the meeting is about.

In the meeting, establish one rule: Silence does not equate to assent. Whenever appropriate, hold formal consensus checks, asking each attendee, by name, if they agree to the proposed resolution. (This is very important: Especially if the culture is to avoid conflict, there’s a risk that everyone will keep their head down when she states an opinion strongly and hope they can counter it offline, which would put you in the middle).

Chances are, you’ll really need two or three meetings – the second to review revised site designs; maybe a third to finalize and seal the deal.

But by getting all the liars in one room you take yourself out of the hot seat and put the decision where it belongs – among the decision-makers.

– Bob

——–