In a previous post, I set out "Seven Enduring Principles of Change Management Applicable to Enterprise 2.0." In this post, I would like to talk about "Respect" which is one of these principles. In the previous post, I suggested that it was important to "respect the existing people and system." For the purposes of this post, I would like to break this out into five different areas.
Respect where the organization is at and where each part of the organization is at.
Often the assumption driving those advocating for organization change is: "we know what is best for the organization and others who are the target of the change do not." This assumption may discount the history of the unit and the people subject to the change. It may tend to de-personalize the people and see them as pieces in a chess game. It may create or exacerbate an "us and them" mentality.
Things are the way they are for a reason - often based on many past decisions or responses to challenges in the environment. People have committed to this way of operating and learned necessary skills. They may even have enhanced their personal identity based on the way they are doing this work. This does not mean that change is not needed and will not be helpful. It does mean that a healthy respect should be accorded to the way things are, how and why they got to be this way and how deeply tied people are to them.
In addition, each person and unit subject to the change can be at a different place with regard to their positive or negative feelings or disposition to the change. Each may be at a different place of readiness. Each may require a different type of effort to help them be ready and willing to change.
In a project implementing a software package at multiple facilities that enabled virtual operation, we recognized that each new facility was at a beginning part of the change cycle, that executives could be at a different place from team leads or team members and that field personnel could be at a different place from headquarters staff. We developed a tool to assess readiness for change and developed communication and education responses to meet where different people were at. We portrayed the benefits of changing. At the same time, we recognized that things were done a certain way in the past for good reasons and we refrained from demonizing the past.
People usually have good reasons for resisting change which need to be considered.
One common view of resistance is that it is something to overcome. As one military individual once said about an upcoming change and resistance to it: "we'll just get in the tank and run right over them." Though this may have been more starkly said, it does reflect a common assumption about dealing with resistance.
I prefer the approach that says, people resist change for good reason. In one case where an office was being moved, people said, we don't really want to move to a new city. They also said, we are concerned about the impact on our operations. Like with most resistance, there are personal reasons and business reasons. There are also reasons that are too deep to be stated as in, being here and working here has become an important part of my life and identity.
I think the best way of dealing with resistance is to try to learn more from people about what is behind what we see as resistance and to seriously consider what people have to say. Taking this information into consideration may improve the quality of the implementation and the end state of the change. This is especially true given the emergent nature of change involving Enterprise 2.0 approaches.
There has to be something in it for people to help them to be motivated to change.
People who don't want to change are not crazy. They are simply utilizing their common sense in making a decision upon the facts they have and their emotions as to what they believe is best for them. To impact this status quo, a case has to be made both on cognitive and emotional grounds as to why the changed state would be good for them. If that case cannot be made and if they cannot be convinced, some people will go on resisting, some will be fired, some people will quit and some will go along grudgingly and remain so unless and until they can see some benefit to themselves.
One client of mine was implementing CIM - Computer Integrated Manufacturing, which at the time was the Enterprise 2.0 of its day. The company had a pilot in a room with transparent glass where people from that facility and others could come by and watch the technology in action. There were also videos that could be viewed with regard to the new technology. The application of this tactic may be different for Enterprise 2.0, but the message to be conveyed is the same: you will be safe with this technology, you can develop the skills to use it, you will even enjoy using it, you can build a work identity around working with this new technology.
The virtue of Enterprise 2.0 tools is that there is at least likely to be an intrinsic benefit to using the technology, e.g. facebook type applications. People will enjoy using them. It is, thus, an important decision when the leadership of an enterprise says you can use this tool, but not to communicate with your friends or not to post personal messages. Remember, there still has to be something in it for people to use it.
Recognize and appreciate what is already being done that is in line with the change.
One good way to facilitate change is to discover how to build on the existing strengths of people that are in line with the change. This is an easier path than assuming that everything in the future changed state is new and focusing on what people aren't doing and don't yet know how to do. For example, rather than presenting a wiki as something totally new, build on the fact that people already have experience editing and commenting on each other's work and that they do it in real time when face to face. Rather than setting up the wiki as an entirely separate process, link it in with the existing work process of people. Rather than setting out establishing a profile as an onerous menu of steps, set it out as similar to how someone might introduce themselves at a party or at the PTA. The bottom line is don't focus on what people are incompetent at, but rather what they are competent at.
One consequence of focusing on strengths is that you avoid the trap of making people feel bad about themselves by pointing out where they fall short. Feeling bad will kill energy, increase stress and demotivate people. This is just the opposite of what one wants to happen in facilitating change.
Respect the culture of the organization. Just as different people have different personalities, different organizations or organizational groups have different cultures. These are different ways of behaving, different traditions, different norms to guide life in the organization, and different stories to name a few cultural elements. The culture might be one where creativity is valued or where orderliness is valued. A culture can be a hierarchical one where information is passed up and down the organizational ladder or an egalitarian, networked one where information is passed informally from one person or group to another. The culture can be one where knowledge is held close to the vest or where knowledge is easily shared. The culture can be one where people are comfortable with technology or one where they are not. Culture matters when you are implementing Enterprise 2.0 approaches. If you ignore the culture, you will be creating a great deal of unnecessary risk. I recommend trying to understand the existing culture along a number of relevant parameters while trying as much as possible to identify where the Enterprise 2.0 tools and approaches might require different behaviors than are usual in the existing culture. For example, implementing a practice of blogging and commenting on blog posts would require new and even alien behaviors in a culture where knowledge is tightly held by individuals and groups. In some cases, the best decision might be not to move forward with Enterprise 2.0 tools or to move forward on one tool, like personal profiles, that does fit with the culture. In cases, where there is some congruency between the tools and the culture, implementing the tools seamlessly as part of an existing process with supporting education as to behaviors might be a good approach. In time, this will likely impact the culture. In other cases, the change may need to be conceived as a significant change in which a hierarchical, non-collaborative organization is desired to move to be a flatter, networked, more collaborative one. I don't believe that such a change can happen just by implementing Enterprise 2.0 tools. The implementation of the Enterprise 2.0 tools will have to be a part of a larger, more encompassing change process that addresses behaviors, values and work processes.
Comments