It was better the old way

Chances are pretty good that we've all accepted some version of one of following maxims in the last few years:

Business is moving faster than ever before.

The pace of change (technical, societal, economic) is rapidly accelerating.

Advances in technology continue to outstrip our capacity to adapt.

Even the personal technology that many of us have adopted - smartphones and tablets primarily, drive home this point almost every day. Once you have even a average number of Apps loaded on your iPhone, say about 20 or so, almost every day at least one or two of them has a new version for you to download.

And if you ignore that little visual cue on the App Store icon for a week or two, you'll likely be faced with perhaps a dozen or more updates queued up and waiting.  It's quite likely that the Apps you rely on every single day, (News reading apps like Pulse or Zite, social networks like Facebook or Twitter, image Apps like Instagram or Camera+), push a brand new version out every month if not sooner.

Even if any individual new App version by itself is not all that comprehensive or significant, when taken in the aggregate, and considering how many times per day/week you engage with these apps, that is a lot of technological change being foisted on end users. 

But wait a second, we are supposed to loathe change, right? Particularly technology changes that are forced upon us against what we believe are our best interests and preferences.

Push out a new Windows or MS Office upgrade in your organization and stand back to wait for the shouts of outrage.

Dare to migrate to a new ERP or HRIS system, even a 'better' one than what is currently in place, and prepare for 12 months of 'In the old system, I knew exactly how to get that information. Now - who knows?'

Try to migrate collaboration and interaction out from Email and into some new, 'Facebook for the Enterprise' tool and prepare for a long, slow, path to adoption, (if you ever get there).

Our collective and individual experience and affinity with the world of Apps - with their rapid iteration, incremental changes, and persistence in nudging us along to accept those changes I believe is making us less and less 'change averse', at least when the change feels small.

Push out a dozen small changes each year - to a technology, a process, a policy - and people get used to it, they worry less about the implications of each change, and they are more inclined to see you the creator as someone 'continually focused on making it right'.

Drop a big, hairy, massive change on people all at once - well good luck with that and let us know how it goes.

We hate change because too much of our experience with change has been the old way - like getting dropped into a foreign country with no understanding of the language or landscape. But chopped up and served in more incremental pieces - that is the kind of change we all are coming to expect and, maybe even embrace.

I think that's why your Mom tried to trick you into eating your broccoli by cutting it up into the tiniest pieces possible, or mixing it into something tastier.

NO ONE wants a plate of giant broccoli.

Have a Great Week everyone!

The Pace of Change

One of the best ongoing online series on leadership and business is the New York Times fantastic 'Corner Office' interviews conducted by Adam Bryant. In each piece, Bryant talks with a company CEO about business philosophy, their thoughts around people management, and often, and of particular interest to HR and recruiting professionals, the hiring and interview process.

In the most recent installment, Bryant talked with Harry West, CEO of the innovation design firm Continuum, and while Mr. West had some interesting things to share about interviewing and hiring -  'I ask a few very basic questions. “What is it you want to do? What is it that you’re good at? What is it that you’re not good at? Tell me about what you’ve done.”, the most intriguing part of the Corner Office piece was an observation West made about change, and specifically the speed in which change can be effected inside an organization. 

Here's the passage from the Times article:

Pacing is really important in an organization. When you’re leading, you’re generally trying to lead change, and I think it was Roy Amara, who said about technology, “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.” And I think the same applies to change within an organization.

Let that sink in for a second, we overestimate the impact of a (technology) change in the short run, and underestimate it in the long run. I think with the relentless, powered by social networks, 24/7 news and information cycle that can often lead to even more hype and therefore expecations about new technologies, that managing expectations and understanding an organization's ability to navigate through any significant change is more important than ever. But don't take my word for it, check what CEO West has learned about the pace of change in his career:

And so I’ve learned that it’s critical to think carefully about the pace of change, and it’s something that I’ve learned the hard way. It’s important to manage that carefully, because it’s not just about the pace of change that certain people in the company can manage.

It’s about the pace of change that the company as a whole can manage. You can push and push and nothing seems to happen, and then suddenly it takes off and you’re sort of running to catch up.

Look, we all know that change management is critical in any major process, strategy, or technology program or implementation. But I think it is incredibly easy to fail to have the proper appreciation and empathy for those whose worlds our great ideas and plans are going to impact. In other words, it often isn't about your ability to handle change, ambiguity, or stress  - it's about everyone else's too.

Neither West, nor I are advocating standing still, or waiting for the perfect conditions to effect change, but an occasional reminder that the pace of change might be equally important as the nature of the change is a good one.

Reboot: Even Superman Can Start Over

I've been a comic book fan, off and on, since I was a kid. You know the old question that sometimes therapists ask, about recalling one of your earliest memories from childhood? Well one of mine anyway is a vivid recollection of buying an Amazing Spiderman comic for 25 cents from a local shop.

Image - DC Comics

I still have that Spiderman book as a matter of fact. Looking through it recently, apart from being amused at some of the old advertisements, I was struck by how little the characters seemed to change over the years. They (mostly) look the same, act the same, and behave in ways we come to expect, and certainly appreciate.

But after 30, 40, and for some even 50 years of stories, (referred to as 'continuity' in the comics world), even classic heroes start to look a little dated, and their writer's and artist's ability to craft stories and images that can still resonate with modern readers, (while not alienating long-term fans), gets increasingly difficult over time.

With that inherent conflict and difficulty in mind, long-time publisher comic publisher DC Comics this fall is embarking on what is being termed a 'Reboot', they are essentially a starting over at issue #1 for all if its currently published titles, including such venerable books like Batman, Superman, and Justice League of America. This reboot or relaunch will allow DC to refresh the characters design, and in some cases, through the magic and creative freedom of the comic book form, make them younger and more contemporary. DC writers and artists can simply inject new life into some traditional characters and storylines that the public probably takes for granted from familiarity.

It won't be easy for DC to successfully pull off this 'reboot'. Fans of these comics and heroes won't simply conveniently forget what are in some cases decades-long interactions, backstories, and emotional connections with these characters. But for DC, the desire to revive an old form of storytelling and genre, and the economic need to attract a new generation of fans to these titles are too compelling and have been deemed worthy of the reboot's risks.

What does this little comic book story have to do with the worlds of Human Resources and the workplace?

To me, the most compelling angle behind the 'reboot' is the human one. Sure, having Flash or Wonder Woman get a new costume is interesting, but for that to actually be successful in the marketplace, DC has to attract, recruit, develop, and reward the best artists, writers, designers, and editors it can find. These supremely talented people are the real key to whether or not this reboot, or really any major commercial initiative will be successful. And for DC, while the allure of the brand, and the ability to make a mark on legendary titles and characters like Superman and Batman surely are a recruiting magnet to some extent, eventually the very best talent will not be content simply carrying on 50-year old traditions.

The very best talent wants to tell their own stories. 

By 'starting over' DC is not just making a play to connect with new fans and readers, they are making a play to their talent community as well. After all, someone makes the Green Lantern green after all. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. 

Anyone want to compare notes on Batman #1 once it comes out?

Regenerative braking - maybe change isn't always so hard

A few months back I had a piece over on Fistful of Talent called 'Range and Change Anxiety: Electric Cars are More Like Your Company Than You Think , that tried to make a connection between range anxiety, one of the primary psychological barriers that drivers have toward more widespread adoption of Electric Vehicles, (EVs), and change efforts that so often prove tremendously difficult in organizations. The take - that leaders and systems implementors need to take into account both real barriers to change, (cost, technical complexity), and perceived or even imaginary barriers (range anxiety, the fear that the driver will be stranded somewhere even though almost all trips are far too short to actually drain the EV battery).

The less than ground breaking conclusion - that change is really hard, and we make it harder by creating issues, problems, barriers, reasons to say no that sometimes exceed the often practical barriers that most projects also face. Seems kind of depressing, no? I mean if change efforts inside organizations are going to be stymied by any amount of imagined barriers then why bother? Focus on making small, incremental, and low-cost, low-risk changes to systems, processes, technologies and at least you'll have a reasonable chance for success. Then when it comes to have that annual performance review with the boss you'll at least be able to point to something tangible.

Well maybe not all is lost. As a kind of follow-up to the Electric Vehicle adoption story this week Fast Company ran a piece called 'It Turns Out Electric Vehicles Are So Fun To Drive, You Won't Want To Go Back', that reported on the results of a study that provided test EVs to 450 drivers in the United States. After becoming accustomed to the unique and different traits of EVs (like 'regenerative braking', the way some EVs can harness and re-purpose the heat energy from the vehicle's brakes), almost all the driver's had managed to put aside their resistance to EVs.  From the Fast Company article:

But by the end of the trial, the drivers, a mix of high-performance junkies, environmental enthusiasts, and technology pioneers, were hooked: 100% of the survey respondents agreed "electric vehicles are suitable for daily use," and two-thirds were more interested in buying an electric car. Only 9% said they were less interested. "Most households," even those with several other cars, reported the study, "preferred to drive the Mini E," admiring its clean, fun, and efficient attributes.

So once the drivers had the opportunity to actually use the EVs and see first hand how the new technology could not only be more cost and energy efficient, but also improve the driving experience, then at least according to this study, almost all of them were hooked.

Some simple takeaways for organiational leaders and change projects?

Don't discount people's imaginary barriers to change, but the best way to combat them might be to allow more full participation in early phases of change programs, whether it is in planning, early testing, or simply forming communication plans.  The best way for someone to truly believe that their fears are unfounded is to put them to the test, in a hands-on manner if possible.

And finally, if you are 'selling' your change based on some attribute or feature that your community does not care about, or is not directly applicable to making their live's better, the old what's in it for me gimmick, then you'd better hope as in the case of the EV tests, the community finds some other benefits you didn't even think were important.

I'll close wikth the last line from the study write-up:

"The general public thinks that electric cars are all golf carts: slow and boring," she said. "It's not until they drive one, they hear one, that they open their minds that these cars be fun to drive." 

 Substiute 'electric cars' for whatever change project you are stuggling with and see what happens.

Have a great weekend!