notes - tp human capital
TRANSCRIPT
Notes
People and the Process of Change ................................. 2
First Reaction to Change ................................................ 4
Common Concerns Generated by Change ..................... 5
What You Should Know About Your Brain ..................... 6
Patternicity .................................................................... 8
SCARF Model…David Rock ........................................... 10
Bibliography ................................................................. 16
Notes
It is important to realise that not everyone is in the same change mode with the
same degree of intensity or focus.
Social-science researchers have noted that people can be divided into four
catergories according to how quickly they adopt new products and beliefs. That is
how quickly they adapt to change. The four categories are innovators of change,
early adapters to the change, late adapters and laggards. Research has found that
in general terms about 2.5 percent of the population are innovators, 13.5 percent
are early adapters, and 16 percent of the population are laggards. This leaves late
adapters at 68 percent of the population.
It should be noted from a marketing perspective that an individual could be an
early adaptor when it comes to technology, but a laggard when it comes to
fashion. In the same way that a person can be supportive and enabling when it
comes to moving premises, but resistant and unhelpful when it comes to
implementing a new computer system.
In the context of workplace change we have substituted followers for late
adapters and terrorist for laggards. Followers, at 68 percent are doing exactly that
– following; and terrorists is a more descriptive term to describe those individuals
who actively, overtly and covertly oppose change. They are the gatekeepers and
roadblockers of your change initiative.
Notes
Adaptability to change is and will continue to be one of the key success factors.
Teams and organisations that can identify the need to change and make the
change quickly will hold a competitive advantage.
Encourage and empower your innovators. These people provide the triggering
energy required to overcome hurdles and explore many opportunities. They are
your champions and leaders . They will not only imagine the future but play a
critical role in creating it.
Early Adapters will keep the momentum going. The are the first non-innovators
to commit themselves to the change process. However, they are not above
questioning, modifying and improving the change as required in order to
accommodate the greater majority more effectively. In this way they add real
value to the change process. They provide the bridge between the followers and
the innovators. Encourage, coach and lead them. The earlier they catch on, the
quicker the ‘pull-through’ effect and the faster your progress.
Followers are the vast majority. Their enthusiasm to support the change initiative
depends directly on the quality of the argument and the delivery of results. One of
the real tests of how well the change is going is the degree to which followers are
onside – how committed are they and to what extent are the participating in the
change process? It is not the innovators and early adapters you have to worry
about, because they are already there.
Terrorists have to be dealt with one way or another. That is, manage them up or
manage them out, or at the very least have them in a position where they can do
no harm. Many, however will just ‘drop off’ as the change will be too great for
them to handle.
Notes
While there is not a ‘normal’ reaction to change, it is important to note that a
body of research now exists which suggests that when people are confronted with
a change to the ‘status quo’ the first question they have is “What will I lose?” In a
work context the universal question here is “Will I still have a job?” These
questions filter down to more individual concerns like “Will I still get to sit next to
Betty?”
Until these questions and concerns have been answered we will struggle to gain
‘buy-in’ and commitment to the change process. Therefore anticipating and
finding out what these questions and concerns are early in the change process is
important. The earlier you can address these concerns the quicker you can gain
‘buy-in’.
Often management teams try and go straight to the vision of how it will be after
the change – selling all of the benefits and encouraging people to ‘jump on board’.
While being able to clearly articulate the vision of the proposed change is vitally
important, it cannot override the need to understand and address peoples’
perceived and real concerns.
As part of articulating the vision it is also important to communicate the rationale
for the change. People are more likely to ‘buy-in’ when they understand why the
change is happening.
Notes
Following is a general list of concerns raised when change is initiated:
Challenges to group norms and culture. Groups strongly resist
any changes to their norms or culture.
Disrupting habits. Many people prefer their well-known, familiar
and predictable routines and don’t give them up easily, especially when
the routines work for them and they don’t know whether the new ways
will work.
Disturbing existing social networks. Change may disband
informal networks, friendships, etc. the stronger the group ties being
threatened, the greater the resistance.
Losing existing benefits. Change may come at a cost that greater
benefits do not outweigh. People resist change that threatens continuity
of their environment, their employment, their career prospects, wages
or benefits, or that looks likely to increase job demands.
Threats to position, power and security. People resist any
change that causes them or the group they’re part of to lose power,
status or prestige. Those with the most to lose resist most strongly.
Uncertainty about the change and its results. People try to
avoid uncertainty – no one enjoys walking in the dark where unknown
dangers may lurk. Lack of understanding or insufficient information
about change leaves a vacuum that attracts anxiety, insecurity, rumour
and speculation.
Notes
“The ostrich that buries his head in the sand as the pride
of lions approaches is deluding himself by thinking that
his problems will go away.”
Dean Tuckey, Little Aussie Battler
The almost 1.5 kilogram meatloaf that everybody has between their ears today
has probably been in its present form for approximately 200,000 years. And while
we have the most sophisticated brains of any species on the planet it is still
evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living today. Our
brains were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely
met anybody who was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives in
which there were few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.
We essentially have a stone-age brain operating in the social complexity of the
21st century. So how does our stone-age brain impact us on a daily basis?
Our primary interest is survival. It makes sense that we are interested in
survival. If we were not interested in our own survival then Homo sapiens (us)
would not have remained on the planet for very long. Our brains help with
survival of ourselves and the species by giving us a dopamine reward for eating
and mating…and also for avoiding conflict i.e. running from bears.
In a Nutshell: Change raises levels of uncertainty. Uncertainty elevates risk. Risk
equals danger and threatens our survival. Keeping the status quo maintains the
illusion of certainty and we get a dopamine reward for doing so.
Our brain is primarily geared for today. While we have the most
sophisticated built- in simulator that gives us the ability to look into the future and
predict or simulate how events will unfold. Research has shown that we have an
impact bias, which is a tendency for the simulator to work badly. That is for the
Notes
simulator to make you believe that certain outcomes are more different than in
fact they really are. The effect being that we will often subconsciously distort
future benefits or consequences to justify a decision that is most advantageous to
us today – whether that be getting an instant reward or avoiding a difficult
situation right now.
In a Nutshell: The brain makes the current situation look better, downplaying and
refuting any negative consequences. At the same time the brain amplifies the risks
and negative impacts of the proposed change encouraging the status quo.
Our brain prefers the path of least resistance. Our brain is highly
concerned about overheating and looks to conserve energy as much as possible
by encouraging us to act in auto-pilot and to take the easiest option. From your
brains perspective it may need the energy to avoid a bear, so why waste it on
something that is not absolutely critical. Our brains are good at encouraging us to
put off something it perceives as ‘taxing’.
In a Nutshell: Change represents effort - meeting new people, learning a new
process or system all require an increase in mental work, at least in the short
term. When we are not sure that the reward will be worth the effort we try to
avoid the situation.
Our base motivators are pleasure and pain. For most of us, we are
motivated to move towards pleasure and away from pain.
In a Nutshell: If we are not the initiator of change we can often view it as ‘pain’
rather than pleasure.
We have a huge capacity to adapt to changing circumstances and environments.
We can be extremely optimistic (more so when we are initiating change versus
change being forced upon us).
When are are working with people and change, we are dealing largely with a
limbic reaction to the adjustment, which does not necessarily function in a
rational and logical way.
By considering these natural limbic responses and structuring the change process
accordingly we can help people have a smother transition through the transition,
whether that be a change of process or system, a new premise or a change in role.
Notes
“The tendency to find meaningful patterns in both
meaningful and meaningless noise”
The limbic system is a pattern detection machine and has evolved to give us a
survival advantage. It works on the principle that the quicker we can detect
danger, the more likely we are to avoid it. Because of the speed at which this
pattern detection works it is prone to errors. The nature of these miscalculations
is predictable and happens in characteristic ways.
Have a go yourself with the example below.
JGF GPFAM JS GQQD
Your pattern detection software enables you to make a good guess at what the
words are, based on your previous knowledge and experience.
So lets go back in time to explore the characteristic ways in which we make
pattern detection errors.
Imagine Wilma is out the back of Bedrock. No Fred, no Dino, no club, just Wilma.
As she walks past a row of bushes, they suddenly move. Is it a dangerous
predator, or just the wind? Wilma’s next decision could be the most important of
her life. If Wilma believes it is a dangerous predator and it turns out to be just the
wind, no harm done. She moves away and is a little more cautious and a little
more vigilant. This is a Type 1 Thinking Error – believing the movement in the
bushes is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind.
On the other hand, if Wilma believes the movement in the bushes is just the wind
and it’s a dangerous predator, she’s lunch. She’s just won the Darwin award. She’s
been taken out of the gene pool. This is a Type 2 Thinking Error – believing the
movement in the bushes is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator.
Given that we can make these two types of pattern detection errors, which would
you want to make? Type 1 right? If you are wired like most human beings then
your default position will be, believe all movement in the bushes is a dangerous
predator and not just the wind. Yes, you will be wrong sometimes, but at least you
will still be alive.
Evolutionary psychologists believe that you and I are descendants of the Wilma’s
who ran every time. It is hard-wired into our DNA. The less risk adverse of our
species has been eliminated.
Notes
As human beings we do have a huge capacity for optimism. It is a trait that has
helped us to radically progress society. Just think about the optimism required to
invent and fly an airplane! It is just that in times of uncertainty our negativity bias
kicks in and we are wired to assume the worst.
So what does this mean when we are dealing with others? Given limited
information they are likely to assume the worst and to think that we are ‘holding
out’ on them or that we are trying to mislead them and are untrustworthy. On the
back of these assumptions we will tend to see their emotional temperature rise
and they will become more difficult to communicate with.
As a general rule be as transparent in your communication as you can and disclose
all of the relevant information as appropriate.
Notes
The SCARF model (Rock, 2008) is a summary of important discoveries from
neuroscience about the way people interact socially.
The model is built on three central ideas:
1. The brain treats many social threats and rewards with the same intensity as
physical threats and rewards (Lieberman, & Eisenberger, 2009).
2. The capacity to make decisions, solve problems and collaborate with others is
generally reduced by a threat response and increased under a reward
response (Elliot, 2008).
3. The threat response is more intense and more common and often needs to
be carefully minimized in social interactions (Baumeister et al, 2001).
The model is made up of Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness.
These five domains have been shown in many studies to activate the same reward
circuitry that physical rewards activate, like money, and the same threat circuitry
that physical threats, like pain, activate (Rock, 2009b).
Understanding that these five domains as primary needs helps individuals and
leaders better navigate the social world in the workplace (Rock, 2009b).
Key drive is survival
Notes
The SCARF model involves five domains of human social experience: Status,
Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness.
Status is about relative importance to others.
Certainty concerns being able to predict the future.
Autonomy provides a sense of control over events.
Relatedness is a sense of safety with others - of friend rather than foe.
Fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people.
These five domains activate either the 'primary reward' or 'primary threat'
circuitry (and associated networks) of the brain. For example, a perceived threat
to one's status activates similar brain networks to a threat to one's life. In the
same way, a perceived increase in fairness activates the same reward circuitry as
receiving a monetary reward.
The model enables people to more easily remember, recognize, and potentially
modify the core social domains that drive human behaviour.
Notes
The five domains are interconnected and often an action that we take can trigger
multiple domains. For example when we genuinely and specifically praise
someone for good work, we are positively triggering both the Status and
Relatedness domains.
Below are some suggestions around addressing the five domains:
Status – This is about considering how people will be treated through
the process. Thought should be given to how people will be treated with
dignity and respect. Timely and transparent communication also comes
into this domain as not communicating is perceived as having an
indifference for those affected by the change.
Certainty – As mentioned above transparent and frequent
communication is important. It is important from a Status point of view,
but also from a Certainty perspective. This applies even when the news is
not so good. People will appreciate the time to adjust and that they have
been treated like adults in the situation.
Sometimes with a change initiative the outcomes are not always crystal
clear at the outset. Regardless communicating the process and expected
timeframes can go along way to alleviating people’s stress levels.
In times of uncertainty we are wired to take cues from others as to what
we should do and how we should react. There are a couple of things you
can do to help. Firstly it can be reassuring for some if you can provide
evidence where a similar team or organisation has gone successfully
through the process before. Secondly, leverage your Early Adapters. Your
Early Adapters act as the bridge between management and the Followers.
They bring high levels of optimism, confidence and energy. Get these
people in front of the followers and driving the process as much as
possible.
Notes
Autonomy – Often in a change process, many of the decisions that
need to be made are realistically taken out of the hands of those at the
coal face. As mentioned earlier, people tend to be more resistant of
change that is done to them, as opposed to self-initiated change where
they have lots of autonomy. They key point here is to be mindful of
providing real choices where you can to those affected by the change. It
sounds too small to be worth it, but letting people choose where they sit,
put together the training schedule, decide on a paint colour have a
significantly positive impact on people’s ownership and buy-in to the
change. It goes without saying that if you ask for input on decisions that
have aready been made, it will backfire badly and negatively impact
across the other four domains
Relatedness – The first point to make about relatedness is that it is an
ongoing process. You can’t decide to initiate strategies linked to
relatedness at the moment when you need to implement change. People
are very sensitive to tactics and will reject them outright. The good news
is that improving your working relationships can start at any time.
So, here are some of the key factors that help another person see us as
like them:
Safe – essentially the question here is ‘can I trust you?’ It is largely based
around our previous experiences with each other, i.e. the best predictor
of future behaviour is past behaviour. The thing to ask yourself here is
‘have I previously acted in ways that would give cause for others not to
trust me?’
Care – the person is asking ‘do I feel like you care about me as a person,
or do you make me feel like a cog getting plugged into the machine for
the day?’
Notes
Leaders who demonstrate high levels of care do several things
consistently and genuinely. They greet team members at the beginning of
the day. They use common courtesies when requesting work and on
successful completion. They demonstrate awareness of people’s
individual situation by checking in when something significant is
happening for someone in their team – John’s fishing trip, Susie’s sick
child, David’s first ballet recital.
Liking – these leaders both naturally and purposely use influence
strategies. Research shows that there are three factors at play when it
comes to liking someone. We tend to like people who; are similar to us;
who pay us compliments and who cooperate with us to achieve mutual
goals.
We are wired to belong and similarity binds and makes it easier for us to
relate. The research shows that even small commonalities can be very
effective bonding agents. You do not have to compile a dossier on each
team member, but by understanding significant aspects of others lives
and being prepared to disclose your own can have benefits. Again
authenticity is a must. Attempting to build rapport with Mary by
pretending you like golf (because Mary is), when in reality you have never
played and would rather be shot out of a cannon is dishonest and will
backfire.
We also know that the vast majority of people identify that their work
performance is important to them (even low engaged employees).
Because of this, while it is nice to compliement people on their hair or
outfit, ultimately people want to be validated for the work they do. Ideally
you should aim to give each team member some form of compliment
about their work performance each week. The important ratio to be
aware of in workplace relationships is 3 to 1. Three positive interactions
for every negative (i.e. a corrective feedback conversation).
Notes
Fairness – people’s perception of fairness is very individual and
contextual. We think as a leader you need to be able to put yourself in the
other person’s shoes and honestly ask ‘Is this change and the way that
people will be treated through the process ethical?’
Your answer to that question should influence your next move. Often
there is a conflict between the ongoing viability of the organisation and a
negative impact on a small group of employees. Most of us have the
ability to understand basic economics and that a business cannot keep
running if it is not profitable. Regardless people have an expectation that
they will be treated fairly and looked after through the process.
Notes
Brain Changer, David DiSalvo, BenBella Books, 2013
Change Anything, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler,
Change Your Thinking, Sarah Edelman, ABC Books, 2002
Influence: Science and Practice, Robert Cialdini, Allyn and Bacon, 2008
Influencer, Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler, McGraw Hill,
2008
Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely, HarperCollins, 2008
Strangers to Ourselves, Timothy D. Wilson, Harvard University Press, 2002
Subliminal, Leonard Mlodinow, Pantheon Books, 2012
The Advertising Effect, Adam Ferrier, Oxford University Press, 2014
The Happiness Trap, Dr Russ Harris, Exisle Publishing, 2008
Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, Penguin Books, 2012
What Makes Your Brain Happy and Why You Should Do The Opposite, David DiSalvo, Prometheus
Books, 2011
You Are Not Your Brain, Jeffrey Schwartz, Penguin, 2009