This is the second in a two series blog on thoughts about what routinely trips up executive sponsors in a software launch. 

The first blog addressed the obstacle represented by the tendency to under-estimate the resources needed to launch a software package that invokes changes in work style, including the tendency for the sponsor to under-estimate their internal resources to stay involved and see the launch successfully through to completion.

The focus of this blog is the second obstacle of resistance from others that trips up sponsors.   If under-estimating is an internal problem, most people think of this one as an external problem caused by staff other than the sponsor.  It is actually both an external and an internal issue, but more about that latter.  Bottom line, RESISTANCE prompts the executive sponsor to make avoidable mistakes.

If you’re that executive sponsor you might describe the obstacle as running into a “buzz saw” of direct resistance from one of your direct reports or peers.  They directly or indirectly don’t comply with using the new software.  Now what?  In fact at this point, it usually gets worse.  You end up feeling like your authority is being challenged on some level, and at the same time you get in touch with the anxiety that you can’t do without that person or group’s work contribution - welcome to the uncomfortable feeling of ”being held over a barrel.” 

Wonderful, and all you wanted to do was have everyone use this cool, new software!

By-the-way, the buzz saw didn’t just emerge over the launch of the software - but it usually does break through the “I’d rather not address that or think about it” box.  What do I mean by that? 

More specifically, the introduction of new software and the accompanying request to work (plan, follow-up, document, coordinate) in some new way stirs up latent “you’re not going to tell me or my department how to work” reactions.  The launch doesn’t create the tension, it just surfaces the unresolved tension between executives, between manager and direct report, or employer and employee, etc. who both need each other, but haven’t clarified and/or typically worked through this one critical point – that any job includes more than responsibility for completing a task, it also includes the responsibility for adopting certain processes, tools and values while completing the task (e.g. following the rules of priorities often set by someone else).

The most common mistake I see sponsors make at this point looks like some combination of the following: a) you pull back the mandate to adopt the software,  or b) you quit following up and tracking adoption and just use the software yourself,  and/or c) you stop requiring software adoption for this person, or their group… and there goes the launch.

Executives and Managers who sponsor software adoption launches are apt to run into two predictable obstacles that threaten the success of the launch.  The second prominent obstacle that trips up executive sponsors is RESISTANCE often unaccompanied by denial and discomfort about it’s existence.  The resistance to using the new software, is championed by a “powerful” individual or group, who you can’t really afford to say, “Use the new tool or walk,” and so you feel “held over the barrel” and are tempted to start granting concessions – don’t!

Suggestions: If you run into this obstacle inquire, address and resolve, don’t avoid, the resistance.   Don’t end up looking like a case example for Edwin Friedman’s book, A Failure of Nerve(Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix).  The resistance represents at best something that needs clarification and attention, at worst it represents an unhealthy part of the culture and work relationships which is not only uncomfortable, but loses money.  

Dibachi’s book “Just Add Management” list 7 simple basics that will serve you well as a set of guide lines or topics to work through if you’re running into this obstacle.   They include: 1. Your job exists to make this company a success.  2. Yes, I am the boss, so my priorities over-rule your preferences.  3. The customer pays all of our salaries.  4. Do what matters.  5. Do it right. 6. Track your progress.  7. Work smart.

Bottom Line: Remember, the resistance to the software launch represents issues that you need to address, not avoid.  It may be a simple mis-understanding, it may be an outgrowth of not feeling included or recognized, or it may be a symptom of deeper seated conflicts (ex. “even though you’re the boss, and sign my pay check, I’m going to work the way I want to”).  Irregardless, it pays to address and work through this obstacle, from both a software launch and overall organizational culture and performance perspective – it gets worse over time if you don’t.

Links:

Software Adoption: The Two Hurdles that Trip up Executive Sponsors (1 of 2)

Consulting Sevices to Help Launch ManagePro Software

After writing the past couple of weeks on some of the emotional processing we all go through when deciding to adopt new software, I wanted to take a moment and comment on two hurdles that routinely trip up executives and business managers, that a are sponsoring a software launch.  This is the first of two part blog. 

While on the road last week I was thinking that if you were ever in the position to launch software across your group of direct reports, or a team or a business group or division – you would probably want to know what are the two obstacles that most frequently trip up executives in this position.  Doing face plants are frustrating, expensive, embarrassing and no fun.

I see the same two obstacles emere over and over again, and I’ve run into them when doing launches for large organizations like the United Nations in Rome, international firms in Asia, as well as in small, owner operated businesses in the US. Funny how it is the same regardless of where I go in the world.

So let’s get into this topic.  Executive sponsored software launches get stalled or have a marginal success rate for one of two reasons. What would you guess?

- It’s not trying to find just the right software, that stalls the process before you ever get to a launch.

- It’s not software features, and it’s not training, interestingly enough.

The first obstacle is INTERNAL or resides within the executive sponsor – and it prompts a very avoidable mistake.  If you’re that executive you:

a) Underestimate how much effort it will take to launch the software. You’ve usually embedded some pretty significant culture change requirements in the use of the “new” software package and you’re in a fair state of denial about how much work it will take to get people to change their work style so that they can effectively use the new software.

We see this all the time with ManagePro. Essentially ManagePro requires that people document progress updates and to-dos in order to work in a more coordinated, collaborative manner. If your business group is used to doing very little documentation and handle most things by phone calls or meetings… adoption of a software product like ManagePro represents a significant change in the work culture. 

I don’t mean to represent that software adoption is something that most teams can’t accomplish – they can, you can. And it can generate very high returns, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars in quick order, but you need to evaluate what degree of forward step it represents for your group. Instead of minimizing or under-estimating the required resources, you may need to “buckle up” before launching the program when it involves the stressors associated with CHANGE an innovation.

b) The under-estimating often seems related to how much interest you the executive have in the change process. If you don’t like that sort of thing, you’ll find that it can quickly get more time consuming than you enjoy or are prepared to give.   What typically happens next is that you get busy on “next” early in the software adoption process, lose interest as it “drags” on, and don’t keep actively sponsoring the adoption process and removing obstacles that emerge. Actually you may be rather bored with the whole change process which surfaces when you introduce new software.

We consistently find that if this is you, you, as a sponsor, run out of interest or attending before the launch of new software is securely established. You may assign the responsibility to someone else, typically someone who isn’t as invested as yourself in the outcome, and who may not have the resources to complete the task.

One final side note.  Many of the people in the launch recognize this on some level (recognize that the sponsoring executive or manager will run out of interest pretty early in the game), and mirror the executive in pulling back from the effort as well. There goes the launch!

Bottom Line:

Executives and Managers who sponsor software adoption launches are apt to run into two predictable obstacles that threaten the success of the launch. Here’s a summary of the first obstacle and briefly what to do about it.

1. The most prominent obstacle that lies within the sponsor is UNDER-ESTIMATION.   Under-estimating the amount of effort required to launch new software because of the change factor involved, and under-estimating of the strength of their own continued interest and active sponsorship. The resulting fall-out is a software launch that is under-resourced, and for which existing +resources are front-end loaded.

Suggestions: Plan and resource software adoption as the expensive and valuable process improvement project it is. Make sure you are not the only sponsor and that you have multiple, highly involved, powerful sponsors that will help you drive the process… unless you like to climb steep mountains all by yourself.  Make sure you have the resouces to go the distance.

Talk with you in the next blog – send me your reactions.

Links:

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotions and Software Buy-in

The emotional Doorway of Discomfort is absolutely primary for buy-in when the decision to adopt software involves a change in behavior from past practices.  Eg. when adopting the new software means replacing existing (read comfortable) practices.  

Kuhn wrote about this experience lucidly in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution.  Essentially pointing out that scientific thought through the ages (and most other human thought as well), does not change to adopt new models for thought and behavior, new paradigms, unless the old is first dismantled and de-constructed.

Let me share a more simple way to frame it.  We all know the phrase, “Don’t Fix it If it Ain’t Broke“.  Well, flip that phrase and you have the essence of the (3rd) Discomfort doorway.  In order to get the “early majority” to adopt software, in order to adopt a “Fix,” you have to make it unmistakably clear that the current practice is “Broke” and doesn’t allow people to perform at an acceptable level.

Read this carefully – Generating buy-in means you have to prove (pull them into an often discomforting demonstration of how) the current process is “Broke.”  You do this by asking the “Oh *&*#!” questions, as defined by Neil Rackham.

This means, if you are escorting people through this doorway, you need data.  You need to immerse people in enough recent data that points out the inadequacy of current practices, that they get uncomfortable and move from defending the existing to recognizing “they can’t get there from here” and join you in the adoption of a new solution.

Without this process, the very important “early majority” group, representing over 1/3 of your user group, see the adoption of new software as an intrusion upon their already busy schedule – a fix for something that isn’t broke… and the adoption fails.

Let me describe how this doorway works.

1. The door stays closed as long as this group is comfortable.  Think about that for a moment.  That means that to get though this doorway you have to raise discomfort.  The best way to do that without engaging in a direct personal attack is to surface both inadequacy and frustration with the limits of the current process

2. The doorway only opens when you raise enough data points that this group becomes uncomfortable with the results of staying with the familiar.

3. If leading this group through software adoption, as Kuhn points out, you need to show that the current software system fails at some point.  In terms of work performance that means you need to cite examples that prove that the current system incurs costs and risks that are no longer acceptable.  Costs that you are no longer willing to accept the burden of paying, and when confronted – this group is certainly not interested in having subtracted from their pay check.

4. When you point out the current system is wasteful and frustrating, you create a tipping point of Discomfort.  You need to highlight the (usually hidden) costs directly enough (e.g. create enough discomfort) that the door swings open and individuals in this group can move to adopt a better solution… or move on.

Bottom Line: 

1. More than 1/3 of any user group are made up of what’s been called the “early majority”.  Their adoption and buy-in is key for the rest of the organization.
2. No discomfort about the results of maintaining a “broke” system – means no adoption of new software for the early majority user group.

The decision to adopt innovation and new software is contingent on their movement through a doorway marked by discomfort and frustration with existing practices. Until the current process is proven to be broken, this group does not become discomforted enough to adopt the introduced software effectively. This may sound pretty harsh, but it is more a statement of reality and addressing it honestly.  It reminds me of “reality groups” that Glasser founded to drive behavior change in school systems in the 1970s.

Sidebar – Often the leaders I work with, who want to move their work groups ahead for improved coordination and collaboration, get uncomfortable about creating discomfort in others.  The tendency is to switch back to emphasizing attractive features and lowering learning fears.  If this sounds like you, remember this doesn’t work with the early majority group.  Also remember that without the early majority adopting the software, you really have a failed launch, with just early technology adopters using the software… who don’t have enough social power to directly influence adoption in the organization.

But one thing it does point out is that most leaders I work with have at least one or more valuable employees who they shrink from making uncomfortable, for fear of loss, and in so doing set up a situation of being “held hostage”.  More about that leadership issue as it limits software adoption in the next blog.

Links:

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Fear

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Attraction

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotion and Buy-in

If attraction is the emotional vehicle by which “early adopters” select software, fear seems to be the driver for technology adoption by the ”late majority” as coined by Roger’s Innovation Adoption model.   Put succintly, they represent 34% or more of your user group and they only adopt new software when they are forced to in one form or another, and even then they heavily use reference or recommendation from their peer group (not what the early technology group is recommending).

Let me bounce off of you two different sides of fear, which you can address proactively to effect software adoption for this group. 

1. If you think of the Fear door way as having two sides, the first side is the fear of “not getting it“, of failing, looking bad, of the learning experience being protracted and uncomfortably drawn out.  The fear of not being able to learn or use the software directly effects software adoption.  You’ve heard people voice this type of fear.  Comments I have heard from prospective users in the past few days has included statements like, ”It looks complicated” or “How long will this take to learn” (translation I’m afraid this will take a long time or be difficult for me).

Essentially fear that acts as a blockage for adoption is based upon the anticipation that adopting the software will be unpleasant, time consuming and even embarrassing.  You want to minimize this fear using tactics such as: multi-mode training modalities, only introduce training on topics people “need to know” (e.g. 80% of the users only need to know how to use 20% or less of the software), and train using simple, sequential steps that build competency based upon successful mastery experiences.  You also want to provide peer support and peer champions. 

2. The other side of the fear doorway, a different type of fear, also acts as a stimulus to adopt software.  Let’s go over that type of fear so that you understand it and know how to work with it. Remember it is the driver for innovation adoption with the late majority. Without it, adoption, that’s right the adoption you want those other people to pick up, will sputter and fail.

The type of fear that helps the “late majority” adopt innovation is typically a fear of negative consequences.  Negative consequence can range from the fear of missing out, to the fear of negative exposure (they’ll find out I’m not using the software).  Highlighting consequences and consistent follow-up during the adoption sequence all help this group’s fear of loss (their status, their bonus, their boss’s good will, their job) drive adoption – but only it seems if addressed and not passed over by the innovation leaders.

Assuming that a software adoption that isn’t going well today with this group, will “just take a little time,” is wishful thinking.  It is also inaccurate.  The late majority always reminds me of Newton’s 1st law of motion (also known as the ‘Law of Inertia’).  Essentially this group doesn’t move unless impacted by something that moves them.  If they aren’t moving now, the passage of time isn’t going to make it happen.

1. Fear plays an important emotional doorway for many potential software users.  More than one third of an entire user group may find Fear to be the primary driver effecting software adoption. For those of you who purchased software for a larger group based upon Attraction drivers, recognizing the importance of introducing and maintaining the consequences side of the Fear doorway is critical to your success.

2. Both reducing learning threshold based fears, and selectively reinforcing fears of negative consequences, help move the adoption process along.  As important as Fear is for many, the next and final doorway I’d like to talk about is the most important one for the success of an overall launch.

Links:

The Role of Attraction in Software Adoption

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotion and Software Buy-in

Helping you Build a Case for Change

So I’m writing this week about the emotions behind decisions and ultimately three emotional reaction groups that precede software adoption and buy-in. People seem to have a pattern or predisposition to be most receptive to one of the three emotional door ways (an emotional response before they make a decision), even though they may use all three in the life cycle of software adoption.

Let’s start with the easiest door to walk people through – the Door way of Positive Emotions – or more specifically Attraction. Actually as I write that I wonder if it is easiest, or just the most comfortable to navigate. Probably the latter.

As I wrote in the previous blog, this door way represents the phenomenon of paying attention, or making a choice, because you’re first attracted to something. When you’re in this space, you’re attracted to something observable in the software application, or attracted to something you believe it is going to provide, or attracted to what the people who use this application are achieving (and likely you’re not).

When I hear people walking through this door way on the way to software adoption, they’re saying things like: “That’s cool, that’s going to save me time, I like those features, just think what we could do with that, I would like to make just 1/10th of what they made using that software…”

Whether it’s the promise of saving time or money, or just an attractive, immediately useable design, people who walk through this door way, seem to be able to move from positive emotion right into software adoption.  In some ways they represent what is often described as “early adopters” through-out the literature. If they like it, they use it.

Years ago, working with a predominantly Finnish team from Nokia, I was struck by how much the emotional appeal of “clever,” when attributed to a design, pulled them into a go-forward decision. I think the power of that pull is general true across the board for people in this group. The group that responds to the Positive or Attraction door way is less tied to past conventions, and finds it relatively easy to move forward in software adoption.

When I see people walking through this process when it comes to ManagePro, it’s often either attraction to features (ex. being able to drag and drop Outlook email into work projects and convert them into progress updates and todos ) that commonly gets the eyes to light up, or it’s a time and money savings expectation (ex. “if I could have all the information I need within a couple of clicks, I could be a lot more efficient…”).

Take-aways: Here’s a couple of things I regularly see on this topic, some that you might want to be aware of – some that you will definitely want to avoid.

1. Creating an environment to facilitate decision making for people who walk through the Attraction door to reach a decision is a relatively easy, painless, even fun process (compared to escorting people through the other doors). Basically it means actively listen to what interests this group of people, and make sure you highlight that in the software you want them to adopt.

2. Remember with this group you are emphasizing appeal; and attraction, like politics is always personally defined.  You’re going for the feeling of “I like this, this intrigues me, this will make my life easier…”. So don’t expect that what appeals to you, appeals to them.

3. It’s the most frequent choice or focus that I see executives use to introduce software. Unfortunately it only resonates with a small percentage of users and is actually a poor choice as the primary driver for facilitating software adoption for the majority of would be users!

You read what I just wrote, right? It’s a really important point to not miss.

Showing people how “cool” a piece of software is – is not the primary driver for adoption for most users.  It best fits “early adopters” which are a minority of users.

So keep reading and I’ll talk about the two doorways the majority of users pass through in the next couple of blogs, especially when software adoption invokes a change to the way work or business is conducted.

Links:

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotion and Software Buy-in

The decisions you make, including which software to buy, the commitment to learn a software, and then the commitment to use a software as part of your new suite of tools (each is different by the way, and not necessarily overlapping), all involve a back-drop of emotions.

Actually the emotions are more of a door-way to the decision making room. You have to go through the doorway to get to the mental space in your brain where decisions or commitments are made.

If you try and move yourself or others to a decision without first going through the emotional doorway, and by the way there are roughly three possible doorways to go through, you will find it tough going, and the results you anticipate won’t be forth coming.

I’m going to cover the the theme of the differences between buying, learning and adopting, as well as the three different emotional doorways in upcoming blogs.

But let me focus briefly on why it’s so important to understand the emotional connection to decision making, and the fact that emotions precede the intellectual aspect of decision making.

Here’s a construct I use and you can too:

1. Emotions precede cognition – don’t get this reversed. Richard Cytowic’s book, The Man Who Tasted Shapes, is one of the most interesting reads on this topic, but you can find much more if you research decision making.

Bottom line, we feel first, then engage logic to form a decision.

Albert Einstein even eluded to it, as he described the pursuit of some of the most rigorous intellectual thinking and logic, beginning with emotion. “The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart” Albert Einstein

It starts with the heart.  Even logic and decision making starts with emotions as a precursor and context for the effort.  The implication is that if you need people to think differently, can I say “logically”, including making a decision such as buying-in to software adoption, you first need to help them walk through one of three emotional doorways (and sometimes all three). Notice I didn’t say present them with the facts.

Those three doorways look like the following to me:

1. The Door way of Positive Emotions; something that pulls or attracts us, e.g. I’ll use it because I like it, it’s clever, it’s cool, it’s attractive…
2. The Door way of Fearful Emotions; something that helps me avoid what I’m afraid of, e.g. if we don’t use it the bad guys will get us, we’ll lose, I’ll look behind, foolish, unprepared, etc.
3. The Door way of Frustration/Defeat Emotions, e.g. We need something to help us not have another embarrassing mistake, miss a deadline, over-run the budget, have details slip through the cracks… (all involving coming to a point of frustration with the existing system).

There’s a lot more to say about how to help people through each of the different doorways, plus some important things you need to know when working with people who are entrenched with the past… and therefore not inclined to follow you or your decision into the future. Keep tuned, I’ll write more frequently to walk you through these topics this week. Be sure to leave me your thoughts and questions.

Bottom Line: The decisions involved in buying, learning and adopting software always start with emotions, one of three emotional groups in fact. Ignoring the emotions, tends to result in a flawed, or unsupported decision making process

Link:

Finding the Pain before you Ask for a Decision

I was having an email discussion about decision making and buy-in relative to software adoption, and couldn’t pass up the opportunity to make a connection for you given the current focus on politics and Joe the Plumber. It all relates to something you need to know if you are in the position of driving software adoption across a team or an organization.

First a question to illustrate a point. OK, you have 15 seconds, two questions:

1. Do you remember the character of “Joe the Plumber” and what he was going to buy as discussed by both candidates?

2. Do you remember exactly what would each candidates’ proposed health care policies do for the employees of the company Joe was going to buy?

If you’re like me, it’s a lot easier to remember the discussion about Joe and imagine him in my mind, even to remember that he was going to buy a company, than to remember the specifics of how each candidate’s policies, including health care, would effect his prospective employees.

Why?

Because it turns out we remember and make decisions about stuff that evokes feelings. Joe the Plumber is an individual, a character that we can wrap feelings around, the implication of health care for his employees much less so.

Turn on Fox or CNN and notice the candidate quotes they focus on, and how many are designed to evoke a feeling from you the listener. You the listener are to have your feelings triggered, aroused. The candidates do go over facts, but it’s on the way to the emotions around decisions, whether it is fear (the other person is going to ruin the country), anger (get those guys on Wall Street), comfort (I’ll protect you, do what’s best, get you health insurance, keep someone from taking your job), or anxiety and urgency (we’ve got to make a change) if not something else.

I write this not to critique the emphasis in any way, it’s exactly how we make decisions as humans. We feel before we think. We feel before we even pay attention. In fact we don’t think or even recognize stuff if we don’t have some type of feeling about it for the most part, but that’s another blog.

Whoops, I wanted to make this one quick and to the point, and I’m rambling.

So here’s the point.  Well the first point.

Our presidential candidates are well coached, and they are coached to talk about and describe stories and experiences which evoke feelings… because it works. You remember the stories, you have FEELINGS about what they say, you’re willing to act… to vote.

How does that apply to software adoption?

Many times we work with one or more individuals who have had an emotional experience which has led them to deciding to buy our software and have decided others should use it as well. One of the things they most want, is to have all the prospective users WANT to use the software. They want them to caste their vote for the new software.  They want them to buy-into using the software. In fact they want them to share some of the feelings they themselves had, that led up to the decision to get a new software tool.

Most of the time our customers don’t know how to create that buy-in, and in case you’re fuzzy about that like I’ve been in the past, I’ll go over some of the emotions that are key to buy-in with a following blog.

Boy, I need more coffee tonight, I’m rambling again. Ok, here’s the final point I want you to get.

If you are in this situation, and often it is a politically tinged situation, DON’T approach getting buy-in from others in your team or your organization by having a discussion about features or some such thing. It’s entirely the wrong approach!

I can’t emphasize this enough.  Features don’t evoke emotions. Focusing on price typically only evokes or avoids “rule-out” emotions… not the kind you need to garner buy-in.  Without a certain set of emotions, you don’t get a “heart felt” decision. Without emotions, you don’t get a strong call to action… you don’t get software adoption.  Buy-in requires emotions.

By the way, everyone needs to have their own emotional experience, even when it comes to software buy-in and adoption, and NO the people who decide on the software can’t have the emotional experience for everyone else.

I’ll talk about what the emotions that are necessary for buy-in and how to create the emotional experience for everyone in the next couple of blogs.

I want to address the activity that constructs the 4th step or leg under the table in working strategically.  In so doing I’d like to respond to the question from the previous blog, “If you wanted your organization to use technology and manage information more strategically…  What are the simple, daily steps?

Traditionally, people call to mind the phrase “Ready, Aim, Fire” to think of acting strategically.  It’s also common to reverse the order of the last two words (Ready, Fire, Aim) to describe a non-strategic way of working.

These constructs work well and also miss a very important fourth step.  By-the-way, the fourth step can be different activities in different situations, but it always comes back to this core concept that there’s always something fundamental to do after you complete the action step of “Fire” or the 3rd leg under the table.

So what are you supposed to do after you complete the action step referred to as “Fire”?

Maybe I could refer to it as the “Clean-Up” step.  The fourth step can comprise activities such as: follow-up, check back, write an inquiry, document what happened, measure or verify results, confirm if it worked, check on the historical trends, compare to previous month or year, etc.   It varies widely based upon the work being done, and some times it’s just as the term describes, “clean up and put everything away to be ready for next”… but it always exists.

Three things that stand out to me about the “Clean-Up” step.  Well actually a lot stands out, but here’s three things to consider, especially as it has to do with working strategically:

1. Clean-Up invariably means documenting in some fashion, taking more time in the present to document information to create leverage (information re-use and analysis) and efficiencies for the future and often for others.

2. Clean-Up is invariably more efficient if completed closely after the Fire sequence when it comes to managing information.  Write it down while all that information is still floating around in your short term memory cells.

Look at this example from SeattlePi this year covering a successful improvement process by the Virginia Mason hospital in Seattle.
    “… instead of doctors waiting until the end of the day to go through a stack of patient records, they now write comments and recommendations immediately after seeing the patient before going to the next one.  The time saved increases the time a physician can spend with a patient.  Dr. Kim Pettenger, medical director at Virginia Mason Kirkland, said most of the cost of medical care involves clogs in the flow of informaton – paper forms, lab results, phone messages, often leading to irritated patients.  Working the backlog down costs more than if you never let things pile up in the first place.”

The article also adds an important side note about requiring people to complete the 4th step:…
    “He (Dr. Pettenger) said not everyone has agreed with the new system and a few physicians have left Virginia Mason because of it.”

3.  Clean-Up invariably annoys some people, and some people handle the annoyance by putting it off (for someone else to do or until there’s another fire), and then some people just refuse and would rather quit then complete the 4th step.  People who work strategically get tremendous pay-offs from the 4th step.  It’s where they move ahead, gain insights, cement relationships, and build a future instead of just deal with the present.

Bottom Line:  Working Strategically involves four steps, not three.  The four steps are “Ready… Aim…. Fire… Clean-Up”.  

The last and fourth step is a step of investment that seems to consistently differentiate people and organizations that work strategically.  So don’t fall into the group that puts off the 4th step, or worse gets annoyed by it, use it to get ahead!

Links:

Being a Strategic Manager, People, using Information and “Fast Food” Technology

Be a Strategic Manager by Leveraging Your Time

The Relationship between Being Fast and Managing Information

Every person leading performance improvement (whether an executive, manager or business owner), runs into two challenges on the way to reaching the better results.  If these two challenges are not resolved, they derail the performance improvement initiative, and back at the office create a familiar pattern of “on to Next.”  It’s my personal observation that over 80% of improvement initiatives fail, or put another way, every organization’s history is littered with performance improvement initiatives that were not brought to conclusion and were abandoned along side the road.

The two challenges are:
     1. Reliance upon interest vs discipline (internal) and
     2. Coping with resistance (external) Let’s discuss the internal challenge in this blog.  

THE internal challenge facing every leader intending to lead/drive performance improvement is transfering the driver for change from interest to discipline.  Performance improvement initially starts based upon awareness of some felt need, ex. We’re not making enough profit, I’m working really hard and there’s not enough to show for it, that’s the last time I want to be in front of a customer and be embarrassed by not having the information I need, etc…  That felt needs generates a certain level of tension and interest in a solution for avoiding the “ouch” through better performance.  But, here’s something to underline, The interest factor fades out far before the performance improvement initiative is secured.

The interest factor has a comparatively short half-life with regards to the time it takes to accomplish a change.  Often interest starts diminishing after the “solution” is bought or brought on-site.  The solution isn’t in play, it’s just on-site in the form of software or consultants, or perhaps a new “How to” video or e-book.  There’s some easing of the felt pain over the problem, which seems to be attributable to the feeling of having done something (expressed internally as “I’ve started, I’ve done something about it, made a purchase, etc.).

Ok, so interest doesn’t last long enough to bridge the change adventure.  If you look deeper, you’ll notice something else in this area contributes to it being such a challenging obstacle.  Most leaders are more dependent upon interest and busyness to structure their day than they can possibly imagine.  Note that neither interest levels nor being busy is an adequate substitue for discipline when it comes to driving performance improvment.  Why?

Let’s look at how Interest works as a driver for our work activity.  Interest get’s us focused on what feels immediately rewarding to attend too, and also prompts a switch to “next” as soon as the interest factor fades.  Busyness, on the other hand, represents action without high levels of interest, but also without the additional work of value-add focus or prioritization.  It has a certain pacifying, comforting, mechanical quality… after all you are busy.  It’s represents major chunks of our day for most of us in the activities of attending scheduled meetings, or responding to the onslaught of email.  However, interest plus busily attending meetings and responding to email doesn’t drive performance improvement.  We have many case examples to prove that conclusion.

Here’s an interesting side note.  When interest is a key driver for leadership behavior, mental fatigue is a consistent ear-mark of diminishing interest.  When working with leaders in this area, they often complain of physical tiredness or mental fatigue as their interest fades.  The internal dialogue goes something like this, “OK, so this seems boring, I’m feeling figidity, in fact, thinking of spending more time on this is making me feel down-right tired… I’ll deal with this later, what’s next?”  

That’s right; it is very easy to mistakenly treat fatigue or fading interest as a cue to move onto “Next”, as opposed to something to work through in terms of better business discipline.  Successfully achieving performance improvement requires internally orienting to a process of tracking, follow-up and removal of obstacles, week after week.  This is the discipline that eventually makes improved performance the new standard.  I’ll describe more about what that discipline looks like in a follow-up blog.

Bottom Line: Achieving improved performance takes time and a lot of effort.  It is an effort that will take a longer time to complete than initial interest will last.  Ultimately to be successful at leading change, you have to develope a discipline that keeps you continuing in your focus and follow-up on the priorities you’ve established long beyond the point at which initial interest has worn off.  How about you?  How much of your day is spent on what interests you or being busy, vs. what drives your business priorities?

Performance Improvement Walls – Interest Fade and Personal HabitsPerformance Improvement and the Role of Discomfort From Configuration to Launch – Implementing Performance Improvement Software
Technology for Performance Improvement

Every person leading performance improvement (whether an executive, manager or business owner), runs into two challenges on the way to leading others to better results.   Two challenges that routinely derail performance improvement initiatives.   Two challenges that, if not resolved, result in one more entry in an organization’s history of performance improvement initiatives that were not brought to conclusion and were abandoned along side the road.As mentioned in the previous blog, the two challenges are:
     1. Reliance upon interest vs discipline (internal) and
     2. Coping with resistance (both external to the leader and internal)This blog is aimed at discussing the 2^nd challenge – Coping with Resistance.   I think I can safely say that every improvement initiative runs into resistance.  In fact, I don’t think there’s anything safe or necessarily comfortable about leading a change initiative – it’s just that nothing changes without someone or something driving the change process.There are over 52 million google entries on the topic of change and resistance, 52,100,000 as of 4/15/08.   It’s widely discussed.  You’ll find lots of resources on the web, varying from:

1. Descriptions of the most common reasons behind resistance such as Schuler’s Overcoming Resistance to Change: Top Ten Reasons for Change Resistance

2. To people, such as Patti Hathaway, describing her model of the 4 phases which people may or may not proceed through in coping with change and the associated pain,

3. To Bill Bridges, who has published extensively in the area, and differentiates change from transition…

“As I use the term, change is a shift in the externals of any situation: a new boss, setting up a new program…  By contrast, transition is the mental and emotional transformation that people must undergo to relinquish old arrangements and embrace new ones.”

The inescapable truth is that people inevitably resist change initiatives of all types.  As confirmation, Patti Hathaway points to research suggesting that only 23% of all corporate mergers recover their cost, and that only 9% of all software launches across large organizations succeed because of the change hurdle!  The research, and I bet your own experience, suggests that resistance is too much of a challenge for most people leading a change initiative.    When it comes to change versus resistance, resistance wins most of the time.

That being said, if I stopped there, this would be a pretty initimidating blog to read.  My intent is to go beyond one more entry in the 52 million that describe the reality of resistance, and to point out something very simple that you can do to succeed in this area and switch the odds for success to your side if you are launching a change effort.

Here it is.  It’s the biggest single, simple truth to help you succeed when faced with resistance:

>>>Deal with it as a regular part of your job – Expect and Manage Resistance

Do not:
1. Give up, out of fear of losing a key employee or discomfort with the level of conflict
2. Avoid, deny or ignore it,
3. Doubt yourself or the goal of improving performance,
4. Get defensive… you can’t learn anything when you do,
5. Avoid spending time every week managing the associated people/transition process,
6. Forget that the goal is to improve performance, not maintain comfort levels.

It’s really in some ways that simple.   The key to successfully managing resistance is to expect and deal with it.  By “deal with it” or “manage it” I mean planfully anticipate it, actively challenge it when it emerges, and provide the resources (including your own time and presence) to assist people with the transition in incorporating new and improved performance practices and systems.  I say that, knowing it is a very involved subject with numerous keys to successfully managing resistance, including as examples:

1. Expect, understand and respond to resistance as partly a reaction to loss of control; a lowering of felt recognition or value.
2. Address the personal transition part by responding to the Why? and What’s in it for me? questions, and inviting dialogue (not shared control).
 

Managing resistance also means carefully avoiding the “Do Not” list above.  To recognize, as Edwin Friedman suggested in his book, Failure of Nerve, that effectively leading and guiding a change effort is directly linked to the leaders’ ability to maintain an effective “non-anxious, challenging presence… in the face of resistance and in his words, “sabatoge.” 

Finally, managing resistance means wrapping your head around your objective so that you settle its priority in your mind.  Settle in you mind the initiative’s value and that if push comes to shove, and it will, that you’re prepared to let people go who decide to make a stand of non-compliance or alignment at the point of adopting and supporting the change initiative.   This last point is really a statement of your internal clarity about your goal, its importance and not giving into wobbly knees when facing resistatance.  “Get behind me,” that famous quote from Christ when confronting resistance from one of his favorites disciples, is something every change leader needs to be willing to say.

Bottom Line: Achieving improved performance has tremendous potential pay-offs and because of the resistance to change that is raised, is also a very difficult objective.    Expecting and managing resistance to change is one of the two keys to achieving success in this area.  The very act of effectivley addressing, and not avoiding, resistance to change serves as a foundation for continued performance improvement.

Performance Improvement Technology
Leading Performance Improvement
Tipping Points in Performance Improvement