An earlier version of this was first posted on 1st September 2012

If, as leaders, we want to press for improvement, and for improvement to occur in a meaningful, timely and impactful manner, we need to appreciate any resistance that we encounter from people in a different light. Rather than considering dissent and complaint as an unhelpful roadblock to change, we should view it as both an opportunity and an indicator of progress. The opportunity is that resistance opens a door to new dialogue with others. As an indicator, resistance shows us that people are noticing what we are doing. Furthermore, if that resistance is within the team, it indicates that the team itself is maturing – feeling able to challenge.

Any assertion that “people are resistant to change” should be questioned (Herrero, 2006) – people experience and engage with change in many forms; technology, services, art and culture, lifestyle – even the weather! It is too easy to assume that “there will always be casualties – people not accepting change – and you need to identify and deal with them.”    The occasions when people become resistant is when change is imposed by managers who assume that people will most likely resist – in other words people need to ‘have change done to them’, that “skeptical people and enemies of change need to be sidelined” (Herero 2006). Extending that idea, Seddon (2005) suggests that the reason people are resistant to change is that they often don’t see its relevance to their work, because the rest of the system – how they are managed, doesn’t change. One rule for one  group (change yourselves and get on with it) and another rule for managers (we will stick to our way of doing things).

Instead, with the right encouragement, supposedly resistant people can actually identify and discuss the other areas where change might be required. Those ‘resistors’, with the right support, can themselves start to influence wider change and improvement.

Instead when we manage change, Herrero suggests that greater care is required;

• don’t assume that people have excluded themselves.
• expect resistant behaviours to disappear when alternatives are reinforced.
• give sceptics a bit of slack (they may well have something to contribute).
• suspend judgement, be willing to be surprised, and don’t write people off too quickly.

We should also recognise that discord provides opportunity for debate and the development of new ideas. We always need to examine what ‘outsiders’ are saying and learn from them what the issues or problems really are. It is too easy to assume that “People used to not complying with norms will be even worse at accepting change.” Herrero instead suggest that, ‘non-normative’ people often make good champions once they are convinced that change is relevant.

This means that anyone involved in change, at whatever level, needs to take on responsibility for getting on with the change, to be seen to do the things that need to be done. Be open minded and able to discuss and debate effectively, not quash dissent, but seek opportunities for engaging new ideas. This takes proactivity and a consideration of alternatives (Covey, 1989)

Rather than challenging the nay-sayers with a dogma that ‘resistance is useless’ perhaps we should have a new perspective that will engage their input: resistance is useful!

Read more…

Covey, S. (1989) 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Shuster, New York, NY.

Herrero, L. (2006) Viral Change, meetingminds, UK.

Seddon, J. (2005) Freedom from Command and Control, Vanguard Press, Buckingham, UK.

An earlier version of this was first posted on 13th June 2013

• Are the same old issues arising in your team?
• Have you joined a team that is stuck in its ways?
• Is the team intimidated by new challenges which seem like one step too far?
• Have you ever felt “we’ve been here before“?
•  Are the moaners still moaning?
• Would the team, if honest, say that they are stagnant, uninspired, or just jogging along?

What would make a difference; how can things change; are people the problem or is it something else?

                                               In the words of Douglas Adams

All teams go through various stages of development, from confidence to crisis, from challenge to success, from discomfort to familiarity, from suspicion to support. These cycles can occur in any order, sometimes a positive progression forwards but occasionally involving backsliding and disillusionment. A third common state is no change at all – being stuck in a rut – for months, or maybe years.

The classic observation on team development was made by Bruce Tuckman and his memorable ‘Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing’ model. It helpfully sets out some of things to address which will  oil the wheels of positive team development.

Clear goals, clear ground-rules (i.e. the ways we work together, talk to each other, and use the time and space that we share), clear roles. These are the simple building blocks of effective teams. These things give space for individuals to get on with the work that they do alone and to interact effectively in the things that they need to do together. Clarifying these things as a team should also give space for people to raise questions or challenge things which don’t work well or appear to have little purpose.

So change the way the team works without meddling with the people in it. This gives everyone the choice to make progress alongside their colleagues – which, frankly, most people are quite happy to do.

Reading:

Tuckman, B.W. (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 65, no.6: 384–99.

Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen M.A. (1977) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies 2, no. 4: 419–27.

Optional bedtime reading:

Adams, D. (1979) The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Pan Books Ltd., London.

An earlier version of this was first posted on 3rd May 2012

If we hear the word ‘change‘, what are the things that spring to mind..?

Improvement, Worry, Fear, Concern, Insecurity, Challenge, Hassle, Waste, Opportunity, Disruption, Re-birth, Insecurity, Freedom, ?

Fear (or at least ‘worry’) is a natural response and is certainly a term often mentioned by commentators on organisational change as an issue to handle with care.

‘Resistance’ is another common term which in some cases may be fear disguised as bravado (although remember that resistance may also be a source of strongly held, and potentially helpful, alternative views – see: Resistance is useful: a new assumption?).

This begs a question – is fear the dominant emotion of a changing work environment? Does it have to be?

The answer lies in the culture of the organisation. This is the combination of norms, behaviours, values, rules, and conversations that people commonly have. It is the social environment promoted, tolerated and endorsed (even by neglect), largely by leaders.

Is change a difficulty, a problem, a challenge, an opportunity or something that you are just going to have to put up with? What are the messages, stories and perspectives that we demonstrate, repeat, encourage and expect? Is it possible to eliminate a sense of fear by the way we explore and discuss the issues of change?

Of course our views and behaviour are only part of the wider picture. There is also the fear of stepping out and being different, or of ‘raising your head above the parapet’ by doing things differently (with the implication that your head is likely to get shot off!).

It is also not unusual to stumble across incidences of fear being applied (by ‘management’) as a tool to get people to do things.  This might be apparent in the way in which meetings are constructed, how conversations are initiated by leaders, in the ways that objectives are set, in responses to feedback, ideas or proposals. When established behaviours contrast with the stated expectations (for innovation, improvement, sharing or other working values), we need to be ready to challenge the old orthodoxy.

Every manager needs to understand, as Frederick Herzberg noted in his landmark 1968 Harvard Business Review article, if you kick a dog it may move (out of fear) but is NOT motivated. Fear causes a fight/flight response in people, which focuses on generating action to avoid the cause of the fear and not on producing better work or doing things more effectively (Aguayo, 1990). The fight/flight response driven by people who use fear often causes hiding, running or cheating and none of these things lead to positive change which is what the organisation really needs. Sometimes leaders need reminding of this; Herzberg’s 48-year-old article has been re-issued at least five times (most recently in 2008) and still remains relevant. People are motivated from within – they themselves must want the change and it is these motivations which will make things happen.

Aguayo R. 1990, Dr Deming: The American who taught the Japanese About Quality, Mercury, London.

Herzberg, F. 1968, “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 46, iss. 1, pp. 53–62

Seddon, J. (2005) Freedom from Command and Control, Vanguard Press, Buckingham, UK.

An earlier version of this was first posted on 30th April 2012

Is management by fact a bit simplistic?

What about the emotional aspects of work; trust, appreciation, excitement, fear, worry, concern?

How can these things be properly addressed? A lot of these things will be more or less important depending on how we see the world. And each of us see the world differently to everyone else!

If we want to improve anything it is best to devise those improvements from a perspective of understanding, in other words by using knowledge. Unfortunately we live in a world of incomplete knowledge and, dare I say it, differing perceptions (we all see things differently). Deming suggests that we work on the basis of a decent theory of knowledge – but what does he mean? Consider the iceberg analogy:

* A start point is to understand that there are things that most of us know and are obvious, like the peak of an iceberg.

*Next there are the flatter ice floes, which a good ‘spotter’ on a ship might notice bobbing in the waterline. It is important that we know about these and we should get better at spotting them.

* However there is also sub-surface ice (in this analogy) – those things not visible to anyone and for which we need to delve into or at least give consideration. These insights might include decent ‘hunches’ – or ‘beliefs’ – or ‘theory’ – or experience). Effort in these instances is needed either to seek better knowledge or at least think properly about how we might have to deal with them. If we blindly sail through areas were sub-surface ice may be lurking (and assume that what we don’t know will not hurt us) we  would be a little foolish.

* There is also stuff that we don’t know … and need never know… it is out of our sphere of influence and we cannot do much to manage it – in these cases –  don’t worry.

* Deepest of all is the ‘unknown’ – that which we will never know – (so again don’t worry)

In summary we should seek reasonable knowledge when we make decisions; we should not ignore things which are too difficult to understand and we should be honest when we are making assumptions. If we do this, then the outcomes of change, whether good or bad, will be better understood and will help to inform us in the future. If we need to broach sensitive subjects: trust, appreciation, excitement, fear, worry, concern, then a conversation is a good start point.

More reading:

Covey, S. (1989) 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Shuster, New York, NY.

Deming W.E. (1982) Out of the Crisis, MIT CAES, Cambridge MA.