Tag Archives: Myths

Three Myths That Kill Change and Transformation

Leave a reply

Three Myths That Kill Change and Transformation

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1975, more than 80% of US corporate assets were tangible assets, things like factories, equipment and real estate. When leaders in an organization made decisions about change, they tended to involve tangible, strategic assets, such as building a new factory, entering a new market or launching a new line of products.

So when the modern practice of change management arose in the 1980s, that’s what it was designed to address. Managers began to recognize the need to communicate changes to the rank and file, so that they could better understand it and contribute to its success. An entire cottage industry of consultants arose to fill that need.

But now that situation has flipped and more than 80% of corporate assets are intangible. When we talk about change today we are usually talking about changes in people themselves, in how they think and how they act. Clearly, that’s a very different type of thing and we need to approach change differently. Unfortunately, too many people are mired in the past.

Myth #1: If People Understand Change, They Will Embrace It

Leaders like to be seen at the cutting edge and, to be effective, they need to believe in themselves. That’s what makes transformational initiatives so attractive. They’re much more fun than the more mundane aspects of managing an enterprise, like improving operations or cutting costs. Change gives leaders a chance to dream.

That’s what the practice of change management was designed to support. Someone high up in an organization would get an idea to, say, launch a new product line for a new market and the consultants would be brought in to help communicate the idea so that everyone could understand just how brilliant the idea was.

Of course, even if employees thought the idea was stupid there wasn’t much they could do about it. If a CEO wants to launch a new product line, invest in new factories and equipment and hire new people, there’s nothing the rank and file can do about it. Leadership has full control over tangible, strategic assets.

But today, when the vast majority of corporate assets are intangible, transformation initiatives involve changes in how people think and what they do, which leadership does not control. People have the power to resist and you can be sure they will. That’s why change fails, not because people don’t understand it, but because they don’t like it and actively sabotage it.

The truth is that humans form attachments to other people, ideas and things. When they feel those attachments are threatened, they will often lash out. That’s why when you ask people to change how they think or what they do, you will invariably offend some people’s identity, dignity and sense of self and they will act out in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. That doesn’t make them bad people—we all do it—it just makes them human.

Myth #2: You Have To Convince The Skeptics

There is something baffling about human nature. Whenever we have an idea we are passionately about we feel intense desire to convince skeptics. Our inner marketers want to identify specific objections and then devise airtight arguments to counter them. We envision ourselves being dazzlingly persuasive and making our case.

Change management consultants encourage this type of thinking. They advise us to “provide simple, clear choices and consequences” and “show the benefits in a real and tangible way.” They also suggest that we have “open and honest conversations” and “even make a personal appeal” in order to “convert the strongest dissenters.”

This may make sense if the objections are rational, but often they are not. In fact, the most visceral dissent almost invariably has more to do with how people see themselves. That’s why change so often offends people’s dignity, because their identity is so often wrapped up in what they think and what they do. You can’t ask people to stop being who they think they are.

The good news is that you don’t have to. Consider the scientific evidence:

  • Sociologist Everett Rogers‘ “S-curve” research estimated that it takes only 10%-20% of a system to adopt an innovation for rapid acceptance by the majority to follow.
  • Professor Erica Chenoweth’s analysis of over 300 political revolutions in the past century finds that it only took 3.5% of active participation in a society to succeed, and many campaigns prevailed with less.
  • Recent research by sociologist Damon Centola at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that the tipping point for change is getting 25% of people in an organization on board.

There’s no need to waste time trying to convince people who hate your idea and want to undermine it in any way they can. Any engagement is very unlikely to be successful and very likely to frustrate and exhaust you. You are much better off focusing your energies on empowering those who are enthusiastic about change to succeed, so that they can bring in others who can bring in others still. That’s how you build traction.

Myth #3: Things Will Get Easier After A “Quick & Easy” Win

Change management pioneer John Kotter, who first started writing books about organizational transformation in the 1970s, has long advised to establish short-term wins. He stressed that these must be unambiguously successful, visible throughout the organization and clearly related to the change effort.

The concept is problematic for a number of reasons. First, and this isn’t really Kotter’s fault, but the idea of a “short-term win” is often understood to be a “quick and easy win,” which can backfire. If a change isn’t meaningful and relevant, then touting it can make a leader seem out of touch, discrediting the transformation effort.

More problematic is the idea that we should be shooting for projects that are unambiguously successful. That level of success is exceedingly rare. If we are going to wait for perfect projects, we may be waiting a long time. What we want to do is start with a Keystone Change and then learn from whatever successes and failures we encounter on the way.

Perhaps most dangerous of all is the notion that early projects should be visible to large numbers of people. Remember, if a change is significant and has the potential for impact, there will always be people who want to undermine it in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive. Why would we want to broadcast early efforts so they can knock them down?

The truth is that things don’t get easier after initial successes. They often get harder because those who oppose change now see it is really possible. That’s why you need to build a plan to anticipate resistance and Survive Victory from the start.

Change for the World We Live In

In the early 20th century, the great sociologist Max Weber noted that the sweeping industrialization taking place would lead to a change in organization. As cottage industries were replaced by large enterprises, leadership would have to become less traditional and charismatic and more organized and rational.

He also foresaw that jobs would need to be broken down into small, specific tasks and be governed by a system of hierarchy, authority and responsibility. This would require a more formal mode of organization—a bureaucracy—in which roles and responsibilities were clearly defined. Weber’s model reigned for a full century.

Over the past few decades we’ve undergone a similar shift from bureaucratic hierarchies to connected ecosystems and that affects how we need to approach transformation. The changes we need to implement today have less to do with decisions made about strategic, tangible assets and more to do with how people think and act. That presents a very different set of challenges and we need to adapt.

What we can’t do is pretend that the world is the same as it was 30 or 40 years ago and continue with practices that are so obviously failing. Just as Weber dispelled myths about infallible leaders a century ago, we need to break free of outdated concepts that have led to unacceptably poor results.

It’s time to leave myths behind and take a more clear-eyed approach to leading change.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

5 Business Myths You Cannot Afford to Believe

1 Reply

5 Business Myths You Cannot Afford To Believe

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Sometimes a business idea or strategy seems to make total sense. Yet once it is implemented, it turns out to be a mistake. We rely upon research, stories and data to help us formulate what might work best. It’s okay to fail. But if you already know something is wrong, don’t make it worse by relying on a flawed business strategy.

I’ve taken some of my favorite topics I’ve researched and written about over the years and uncovered five myths that, while seeming to make sense, could cost you money, customers and maybe even your business. So, with that in mind, here are my five favorite business myths and the explanations behind why believing them cost your organization dearly.

  1. A Repeat Customer Is a Loyal Customer – The customer keeps coming back, so they must be loyal … wrong! Just because a customer comes back doesn’t always mean they love you. You must find out why they keep coming back. Maybe you have a physical location that is two miles closer than your competitor’s location. What if a competitor builds a store between you and your customer? You may find out they were loyal to your location and not to you. Or maybe your price is the lowest. If that’s what the customer loves, guess what happens when your competition offers a lower price? It turns out they were loyal to their wallet, not your store. There are a number of reasons customers come back that have nothing to do with how much they love the experience of doing business with you. But when you find someone who is truly loyal, keep doing what they love about you, and you may have them forever.
  2. We Want Satisfied Customers – This is a perfect follow-up to A Repeat Customer Is a Loyal Customer. No, you don’t want satisfied customers. You want loyal customers. In my customer service and CX research (sponsored by RingCentral), we asked more than 1,000 U.S. consumers if they were to rate an experience as “average” or “satisfactory,” how likely would they be to come back. Almost one in four (23%) said if they had a satisfactory experience, they would not be likely to or would never come back. Satisfactory is average, and the first opportunity the customer has to do business with a place that’s even slightly better than average, it’s a good possibility that they will move on.
  3. Only the Front Line Needs Customer Service Training – Customer service is not a department. It’s a philosophy that everyone in an organization must embrace. Everyone either deals directly with a customer, supports someone who does or is part of the process that drives or supports the customer experience. Someone in the warehouse may never see a customer, but if they fail to pack merchandise properly, they will negatively impact the experience, causing the customer to call and complain and make the company double its effort to send a product that isn’t damaged. Once the employees in the warehouse realize their impact on the experience, they will view their job in a new way and be focused on creating a better customer experience.
  4. Customer Loyalty Programs Create Loyal Customers – Customer loyalty programs are often about points, perks and discounts. An important question to consider is, “If you take those perks away, would the customer still be loyal to you?” That doesn’t mean you should do away with the program. While these types of programs may not drive true loyalty, what they will do is drive repeat business. So, recognize a loyalty program for what it is: a repeat business and marketing program. And if the customer keeps coming back, each and every time is an opportunity (beyond the points and perks) to validate their decision to do so with an experience that will keep them from even considering switching to your competition.
  5. The Customer Is Always Right – No, the customer is NOT always right, but they are always the customer. This is one of my favorite myths. Ten years ago, I wrote an entire article (Your Customers Are Not Always Right) devoted to this concept. For today, I’ll summarize it in one sentence: If the customer is wrong, let them be wrong with dignity and respect.

Don’t make the mistake of believing any of these myths. Rather than clinging to conventional wisdom that sounds good but potentially fails in practice, focus on understanding what’s behind these myths and what will work. Brainstorm with your team how you can “bust” these myths and create the experience that customers love and come back for.

Image Credit: Unsplash

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

We Must Unlearn These Three Management Myths

1 Reply

We Must Unlearn These Three Management Myths

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “It’s not what you don’t know that kills you, it’s what you know for sure that ain’t true.” Ignorance of facts is easily remedied. We can read books, watch documentaries or simply do a quick Google search. Yet our misapprehensions and biases endure, even in the face of contradicting facts.

The truth is that much of what we believe has less to do with how we weigh evidence than how we see ourselves. In fact, fMRI studies have suggested have shown that evidence which contradicts our firmly held beliefs violates our sense of identity. Instead of adapting our views, we double down and lash out at those who criticize them.

This can be problematic in our personal lives, but in business it can be fatal. There is a reason that even prominent CEOs can pursue failed strategies and sophisticated investors will back hucksters to the hilt. Yet as Adam Grant points out in Think Again, we can make the effort to reexamine and alter our beliefs. Here are three myths that we need to watch out for.

Myth #1: The “Global Village” Will Be A Nice Place

Marshal McLuhan, in Understanding Media, one of the most influential books of the 20th century, described media as “extensions of man” and predicted that electronic media would eventually lead to a global village. Communities would no longer be tied to a single, isolated physical space but connect and interact with others on a world stage.

To many, the rise of the Internet confirmed McLuhan’s prophecy and, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, digital entrepreneurs saw their work elevated to a sacred mission. In Facebook’s IPO filing, Mark Zuckerberg wrote, “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.

Yet, importantly, McLuhan did not see the global village as a peaceful place. In fact, he predicted it would lead to a new form of tribalism and result in a “release of human power and aggressive violence” greater than ever in human history, as long separated—and emotionally charged—cultural norms would now constantly intermingle, clash and explode.

For many, if not most, people on earth, the world is often a dark and dangerous place. When your world is not secure, “open” is less of an opportunity to connect than it is a vulnerability to exploit. Things can look fundamentally different from the vantage point of, say, a tech company in Menlo Park, California then it does from, say, a dacha outside Moscow.

Context matters. Our most lethal failures are less often those of planning, logic or execution than they are that of imagination. Chances are, most of the world does not see things the way we do. We need to avoid strategic solipsism and constantly question our own assumptions.

Myth #2: Winning The “War For Talent” Will Make You More Competitive

In 1997, three McKinsey consultants published a popular book titled The War for Talent, which argued that due to demographic shifts, recruiting the “best and the brightest” was even more important than “capital, strategy, or R&D.” The idea made a lot of sense. What could be more important for a company than its people?

Yet as Malcolm Gladwell explained in an article about Enron, strict adherence to the talent rule contributed to the firm’s downfall. Executives that were perceived to be talented moved up fast. So fast, in fact, that it became impossible to evaluate their performance. People began to worry more about impressing their boss and appearing to be clever than doing their jobs.

The culture became increasingly toxic and management continued to bet on the same failed platitude until the only way to move up in the organization was to undermine others. As we now know, it didn’t end well. Enron went bankrupt in 2001, just four years after The War for Talent highlighted it as a model for others to follow.

The simple truth is that talent isn’t what you win in a battle. It’s what you build by actualizing the potential of those in your organization and throughout your ecosystem, including partners, customers and the communities in which you operate. In the final analysis, Enron didn’t fail because it lost the war for talent, it failed because it was at war with itself.

Myth #3: We Can “Engineer” Management

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management, based on his experience as a manager in a steel factory. It took aim at traditional management methods and suggested a more disciplined approach. Rather than have workers pursue tasks in their own manner, he sought to find “the one best way” and train accordingly.

Before long, Taylor’s ideas became gospel, spawning offshoots such as scientific marketing, financial engineering and the six sigma movement. It was no longer enough to simply work hard, you had to measure, analyze and optimize everything. Over the years these ideas became so central to business thinking that they were rarely questioned.

Yet they should have been. The truth is that this engineering mindset is a zombie idea, a remnant of the logical positivism that was discredited way back in the 1930s and more recent versions haven’t fared any better. To take just one example, a study found that of 58 large companies that announced Six Sigma programs, 91 percent trailed the S&P 500 in stock performance. Yet that didn’t stop the endless parade of false promises.

At the root of the problem is a simple fact: We don’t manage machines, we manage ecosystems and we need to think more about networks and less about nodes. Our success or failure depend less on individual entities, than the connections between them. We need to think less like engineers and more like gardeners.

Don’t Believe Everything You Think

At any given time, there are any number of clever people saying clever things. When you invoke a legendary icon like Marshall McLuhan and say “Global Village,” the concept acquires the glow of some historical, unalterable destiny. But that’s an illusion, just like the “War for Talent” and the idea of “engineering” your way out of managing a business and making wise choices.

Yet notice the trap. None of these things were put forward as mere opinions or perspectives. The McKinsey consultants who declared the “War for Talent” weren’t just expressing an opinion, but revealing the results of a “yearlong study…involving 77 companies and almost 6,000 managers and executives.” (And presumably, they sold the study right back to every one of those 77 companies).

The truth is that an idea can never be validated backward, only forward. No amount of analysis can shape reality. We need to continually test our ideas, reconsider them and adapt them to ever-changing conditions. The problem with concepts like six sigma isn’t necessarily in their design, but that they become elevated something approaching the sublime.

That’s why we shouldn’t believe everything we think. There are simply too many ways to get things wrong, while getting them right is always a relatively narrow path. Or, as Richard Feynman put it, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Avoid These Four Myths While Networking Your Organization

Leave a reply

Avoid These Four Myths While Networking Your Organization

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In an age of disruption, everyone has to adapt eventually. However, the typical organization is ill-suited to change direction. Managers spend years—and sometimes decades—working to optimize their operations to deliver specific outcomes and that can make an organization rigid in the face of a change in the basis of competition.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the idea of a networked organizations have come into vogue. While hierarchies tend to be rigid, networks are highly adaptable and almost infinitely scalable. Unfortunately, popular organizational schemes such as matrixed management and Holacracy have had mixed results, at best.

The truth is that networks have little to do with an organization chart and much more to do with how informal connections form in your organization, especially among lower-level employees. In fact, coming up with a complex scheme is likely to do little more than cause a lot of needless confusion. Here are the myths you need to avoid.

Myth #1: You Need To Restructure Your Organization

In the early 20th century, the great sociologist Max Weber noted that the sweeping industrialization taking place would lead to a change in how organizations operated. As cottage industries were replaced by large enterprises, leadership would have to become less traditional and focused on charismatic leaders and more organized and rational.

He also foresaw that jobs would need to be broken down into small, specific tasks and be governed by a system of hierarchy, authority and responsibility. This would require a more formal mode of organization—a bureaucracy—in which roles and responsibilities were clearly defined. Later, executives such as Alfred Sloan at General Motors perfected the model.

Most enterprises are still set up this way because it remains the most efficient way to organize tasks. It aligns authority with accountability and optimizes information flow. Everybody knows where they stand and what they are responsible for. Organizational restructures are painful and time consuming because they disrupt and undermine the normal workflow.

In fact, reorganizations can backfire if they cut informal ties that don’t show up on the organization chart. So a better path is to facilitate informal ties so that people can coordinate work that falls in between organizational boundaries. In his book One Mission, McChrystal Group President Chris Fussell calls this a “hybrid organization.”

Myth #2 You Have To Break Down Silos

In 2005, researchers at Northwestern University took on the age old question: “What makes a hit on Broadway.” They looked at all the normal stuff you would imagine to influence success, such as the production budget, the marketing budget and the track record of the director. What they found, however, was surprising.

As it turns out, the most important factor was how the informal networks of the cast and crew were structured. If nobody had ever worked together before, results were poor, but if too many people had previously worked together, results also suffered. It was in the middle range, where there was both familiarity and disruption, that produced the best results.

Notice how the study doesn’t mention anything about the formal organization of the cast and crew. Broadway productions tend to have very basic structures, with a director leading the creative team, a producer managing the business side and others heading up things like music, choreography and so on. That makes it easy for a cast and crew to set up, because everyone knows their place.

The truth is that silos exist because they are centers of capability. Actors work with actors. Set designers work with set designers and so on. So instead of trying to break down silos, you need to start thinking about how to connect them. In the case of the Broadways plays, that was done through previous working relationships, but there are other ways to achieve the same goal.

Myth #3: You Need To Identify Influentials, Hubs And Bridges

In Malcolm Gladwell’s breakaway bestseller The Tipping Point, he wrote “The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts,” which he called “The Law of the Few.” Before long, it seemed like everybody from marketers to organizational theorists were looking to identify a mysterious group of people called “influentials.”

Yet as I explain in Cascades, decades of empirical evidence shows that influentials are a myth. While it is true that some people are more influential than others, their influence is highly contextual and not significant enough to go to the trouble of identifying them. Also, a study that analyzed the emails of 60,000 people found that information does not need rely on hubs or bridges.

With that said, there are a number of ways to network your organization by optimizing organizational platforms for connection. For example, Facebook’s Engineering Bootcamp found that “bootcampers tend to form bonds with their classmates who joined near the same time and those bonds persist even after each has joined different teams.”

One of my favorite examples of how even small tweaks can improve connectivity is a project done at a bank’s call center. When it was found that a third of variation in productivity could be attributed to informal communication outside of meetings, the bank arranged for groups to go on coffee break together, increasing productivity by as much as 20% while improving employee satisfaction at the same time.

Myth #4: Networks Don’t Need Leadership

Perhaps the most damaging myth about networks is that they don’t need strong leadership. Many observers have postulated that because technology allows people to connect with greater efficiency, leaders are no longer critical to organizing work. The reality is that nothing can be further from the truth.

The fact is that it is small groups, loosely connected, but united by a shared purpose that drive change. While individuals can form loosely connected small groups, they can rarely form a shared purpose by themselves. So the function of leadership these days is less to plan and direct action than it is to empower and inspire belief.

So perhaps the biggest shift is not one of tactics, but of mindset. In traditional hierarchies, information flows up through the organization and orders flow down. That helps leaders maintain control, but it also makes the organization slow to adapt and vulnerable to disruption.

Leaders need to learn how to facilitate information flow through horizontal connections so people lower down in the organization can act on it without waiting for approval. That’s where shared purpose comes in. Without a common purpose and shared values, pushing decision making down will only result in chaos. It’s much easier to get people to do what you want if they already want what you want.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Innovation Quotes of the Day – May 24, 2012

Leave a reply

“We have a moral obligation to invent new technologies. What if Mozart had been born before the violin and harpsichord?”

– Kevin Kelly

“For whatever reason it may be easier for humans to ascribe innovation to one person (Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, etc.), but it is not necessarily helpful to the success of innovation in organizations to popularize this myth. Instead when it comes to creating more innovation in organizations, we must DESTROY it.”

– Braden Kelley

“Pretty much, Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation.”

– Steve Jobs

What are some of your favorite innovation quotes?

Add one or more to the comments, listing the quote and who said it, and I’ll share the best of the submissions as future innovation quotes of the day!

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.