Sometimes it is said that it is the very people that work in a company that resist flow, resist change.
‘The bigger the change, the bigger the resistance! ‘ everybody knows that.
Really?
In a company with many ideas about how to achieve their strategic objectives, all these ideas result in programs, projects and daily operations. When the company wants to achieve its objectives, isn’t it obvious one should maximize their project flow?
So, when it is paramount to ensure the required maximization of project flow is realized, one must have a profound knowledge of how the functions in a company are interlinked, one has to have a factual picture of the interdependencies. Most of the time there are several individuals with great knowledge, mostly limited to one or more functions, while no one has a clear picture of the whole. Since it seemed to be too difficult to have a view over the whole, some or many companies have decided to break the company up in many divisions (cost centers, P&L centers..) and, defined goals and measures per division. Measures drive (most part of) behavior. Unfortunately, all divisions are interdependent, and, when the local measures don’t take this into account, these division leads to many conflicts, induced by these measures. Where there are conflicts, there is resistance because it is not in their interest (since they are measured differently) or conflicting with how people’s performance (contribution) is measured. Therefore, to initiate another technological solution, which may not solve this problem may be another waste and just adding to the complexity and frustration of the organization.
In order to avoid unneeded costs and investment, must one not first know what is really blocking the company, now, from doing better with the same? Of course, everything can be improved, every process. But since we have only limited people, limited resources, when one wants to maximize ROI, isn’t it best to find a solution for what is most urgent, most blocking the company from achieving its objectives?
When people resist change, they have a good reason for that. I assume that people are good, there is only bad behavior induced by wrong policies, measures, procedures, that drive our behavior.
In addition one must not only show what the advantages of the change are for each individual, but also consider what the risk is of not changing and, in the meantime, showing how you have adressed the risks that are inherent with the proposed change. The latter can be accomplished by taking into consideration the reservations that people have for the change. These reservations may be concerns about the viability of the proposed change, will the solution really bring the suggested benefits without creating new problems? Other reservations may be ‘Can we do this, can we implement it, in which sequence?’.
What would happen if one skips one of the following questions for any change project?
1. Why change (define goals and measurements)?
2. What to change? (making sure one addresses the lever, the one thing which will have the most beneficial impact for the company)
3. What to change to? (agreeing on the solution)
4. How to cause the change? (agreement on how to implement the chosen solution to the identified root cause problem)
For any technical solution proposals I would suggest always to ask the following questions:
1. What is the the power of the new technology?
2. What current limitation does it address?
3. What are the rules created to cope with the previous limitation that must be changed?
4. What are the the new rules needed to exploit the power of the technology?
5. What are the resulting required changes in technology itself?
6. How the technology provider, integrator and user can work together to enable the implementation of the required changes on win/win basis?
In addressing all above solutions, I assume it is also extremely important to have every stakeholder represented to provide answers. In that way you’ll have the very necessary buy-in from the people. Otherwise, you’ll start with resistance, and one may only cooperate because they feel they are forced to. A lack of consideration is a proof of disrespect. Disrespect is one of the reasons of low motivation, high resistance. Misalignments is another reason. When a technological solution facilitates effectively and efficiently addressing the misalignments, lack of consideration and disrespect, the solution may be worthwhile implementing. But, is it really necessary to use a technological solution in every company in order to bring respect, consideration and alignments in place? That, has to be assessed, and the above 6 questions may be used for that assessment. Hope this is helpful to you, the reader.
