by Robert
I’ve observed it frequently: teams and organizations often demonstrate significant resistance to change. The typical scenario unfolds as follows: Consultants (and I need to admit that I have been one of them for many years) come in, tell top management everything that needs to change, leading to six months of hustle until the initial enthusiasm fades along with the management board’s focus. After a year and a half, everything is as cozy as it was before, except for the considerable transfer of funds from the organization to the consultants.
The reason for this isn’t that the consultants’ strategies are ineffective when properly implemented. Instead, I attribute it to the unrealistic expectations regarding the pace at which change can occur. Change requires time, a fact that must be acknowledged for any alterations to take root in an established system. The analogy I consistently use is that of learning a new language. Merely understanding vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation is insufficient. You need to practice and repeat what you’ve learned to navigate a new language successfully. This analogy holds true at both the organizational and team levels.
From personal experience, I understand this all too well. Whether you’re new to your role, brimming with energy and eager to “sweep clean with a new broom” during the honeymoon phase of your job, or you’ve been in the position longer and recognize that something isn’t quite right, thinking, “Something needs to change – and preferably today,” the sentiment is the same.
Regardless of the scenario, it’s crucial to utilize this energy judiciously. I’d like to share some insights from my experiences: First and foremost, successful change is only achievable if there’s a genuine desire for it. This brings us to a critical starting point: everyone involved must comprehend the reasons behind the change, recognize its value, and be prepared to embrace it.
As a leader, it’s your responsibility to advocate for the change effectively. You have to sell it to your team. Once that’s accomplished, the subsequent step involves facilitating the process of unlearning. It’s essential to acknowledge that altering an existing system fundamentally is more challenging than creating something new from scratch. We’re all familiar with the difficulty of unlearning habits and establishing new, more beneficial ones. The aspect of unlearning is frequently underestimated. Yet, unlearning is just as crucial as adopting a new habit. For certain behaviors, it’s feasible to render them impossible or, at the very least, difficult, thereby making the adherence to these old patterns less appealing.
Finding practical examples of this approach is simpler than one might expect. For instance, if you aim to curtail endless debates over minor details during team meetings and instead concentrate on key issues, consider reducing the meeting duration. Implement a strict agenda that must be followed. After a few sessions where little to no progress is made, you’ll likely see improvements.
Do you want the “First Draft” to reach a certain level of maturity before it’s presented to you? Rejecting drafts that fail to meet these standards without review is one way to enforce this requirement, effectively making it “impossible.” However, I prefer the approach of “making it difficult”: You could stipulate that each draft be accompanied by a cover page featuring a checklist of all the criteria you deem essential. Reviews are withheld until every item on the list is checked off. Naturally, someone could simply tick off the boxes without genuinely meeting these quality standards, but in all honesty, who would do that?
The next critical consideration is to avoid initiating too much change simultaneously. One of GLIA-Leadership’s core principles is that a single tool cannot drive change alone; a comprehensive strategy is necessary. Nonetheless, it’s advisable not to deploy an entire arsenal of changes right from the outset.
Overhauling multiple aspects simultaneously can lead to several issues. Firstly, it risks overwhelming the team. Just as it’s impractical for someone to learn five languages at once or memorize their lines for six different plays, expecting a team to adapt to numerous changes at once is unrealistic. Furthermore, it becomes challenging to keep track of progress and provide adequate support to the team during the transition. Another significant, yet often overlooked, reason to limit the scope of change is the difficulty in identifying what exactly contributed to any improvements. Was it Tool A, Method B, or Approach C that made the difference? The situation becomes even more complicated if there are counteracting effects, where one tool’s benefits are nullified by another method’s drawbacks, leading to no net positive outcome and causing you to question the entire change initiative.
In summary, we have so far managed to convince the team that changing our work habits is beneficial. The team is either enthusiastic about or at least open to these changes. Moreover, we have taken care not to introduce too many changes simultaneously and have begun to make old habits less appealing.
If necessary, we must now develop the required skills within our team. Traditional training methods are well-suited for this purpose. This can be achieved either through an in-house seminar for the entire team or by sending a team member to external training, who will then share their newfound knowledge with the rest of the team as a facilitator.
After acquiring the necessary knowledge, the crucial question becomes how to embed this new way of working within our team for the long term. At present, we’re at a stage where we apply the new methods consciously. However, our objective should be to transition to doing so unconsciously, at which point it has become a habitual part of our team’s routine. Similar to how fluency in a foreign language is attained through persistent practice, this goal can only be achieved through consistent repetition.
The impact of these efforts can be further solidified by deliberately reflecting on our progress. For instance, if we’ve instituted strict time management for team meetings by allocating specific durations to each agenda item, it’s beneficial to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach at the conclusion of each meeting. This evaluation can help identify potential improvements for future meetings. I always advocate for the continuation of such assessments to prevent regression to old habits out of convenience.
Supportive measures like regular reminders or aids that make adhering to the new rules easier are just as important. Here’s an example from myself: My new laptop has a touchscreen. If I discover a typo in my text, the quickest way would be to tap on it and then correct the error. However, I’m so used to using either the arrow keys or the touchpad, depending on the distance of the error from my current cursor position, that I didn’t do this until recently. Now, I’ve stuck a note with the bold inscription “You have a touchscreen!” on my laptop. And behold. I think much more often about taking the quick route.
Similarly sensible is a success check after a certain time. If you notice that a concept doesn’t work for you, you should admit this and return to the old approach – but please as a conscious decision.
As you can see, there is no shortcut available to us either. In my view, anyone who promises sustainable change in a short timeframe is a snake oil salesman. However, by considering the insights shared in this post, you’re likely to be on a path that is not only quicker but, more importantly, sustainable in the long run. What are your thoughts on this matter? What experiences have you encountered with change?
– Robert