I was working with an executive team recently and one individual,
kept interrupting the conversation with an insisting statement of,
“It has to be easy or no one will do it” when referring to using a new
software application.  What was he really saying?  Why the resistance?

Wanting it to be easy, is usually a back-door reference to time, e.g. this
better not take much of my time because I’m busy, but it can also mean:

1. I’ve already rejected it, and am just giving you my preferred reason
for not learning a new system, and the rejection can be based on a wide
range of beliefs.  Beliefs such as, this level of getting it done & documented
right will take too much of my time and may expose me and/or others
in the process.

2. It can also mean, I don’t think there’s any problem with how we work
currently, so unless this is all automated and requires almost no effort,
I’m not interested.

It got me wondering, if you think “It has to be easy or I”m not going to do it,”
what are you saying about the value you have placed on the
activity of information management?”

You might be simply indicating that there’s already a technology to
manage the task easily, so if a new application doesn’t match that level
of ease-of-use, you need to switch technologies.

But I don’t think that’s it.  You don’t buy that either, do you???

My experience is that when most people say, usually emphatically,
“It has to be easy,” they are saying they have more valuable things
to do, so if this isn’t easy, and given that it is relatively not that important,
it won’t get their attention.

It’s funny, but one of the fantasies that quickly follows, is the wish
for the new technology to talk to each of the existing technologies being used,
so that the person can avoid the frustration or nemesis of duplicative entry.

It’s always interesting to me, that the same people who are concerned
about duplicative entry, don’t seem to have a problem ccing and reading
cc’d emails, even though that represents a duplicative daily task.  When
pushed further, the duplicative entry time in a management system like
ManagePro is often less than an hour or two a month… so why the emphasis,
the concern?

I think it’s a red herring.  So, let’s go over the concern again, and then let
me pull something from recent brain research to explain.

So the concerns, actually more like road blocks, that get pushed up when
deploying an information management system that an entire business
team is supposed to use, as opposed to just the finance department, or the
analysts, are usually:
1. It has to be easy, meaning not involve much of my time
2. It can’t require any duplication of effort.

From one vantage point, these concerns simply disclose the individual’s
relative (low) value placed upon managing information better, as it is applied
to improved visibility, coordination, planning, etc.  This position might be
better voiced as, “Who needs to manage information better, aren’t we doing
just fine with meetings and email”?

After all, from this perspective, it’s experience, who you know, gut instinct,
personal power, etc… that determines the outcome, not using information
to generate better decisions, quicker response time, less errors and mis-
directs, exposure of avoidable losses and ineffective strategies and practices.

When you look at this way, it sort of makes sense.  Why manage information
better, if you are convinced your relationship practices, and notes to your
self, are doing the job just fine?  On the other hand, when you operate
from this vantage point, you never know how much you are losing by
not using better tools… because you’re going off of gut, not data.

This response, also reflects something about how you use your brain, or
literally don’t.    When you manage exposure to new ideas and habits,
including managing information, with a defense of your existing habits
and over-emphasis on concerns and fears of one sort or another, current
neuro-science indicates you are operating out of the deep interior of
your brain, known as the basil ganglia.    This is your center that controls
movement, drives and habits, among other things, and
is particular sensitive to motives of threat and fear.

Our habit center is easy to follow.  No new thinking required.  It can
be deceptively reinforcing when we follow our habits and good things
happen… even if they aren’t actually linked.   In fact unless you
actively work to build new habits (improve), most people don’t get
out of their habits until something bad comes along, and even then,
a surprisingly low percentage of us respond proactively.

So when we say, “It has to be easy” we’re usually saying we want to
stay in the habit center of our brain. Not only are we not engaging
in activities which require new learning, it also unfortunately means we
not making good use of our prefrontal cortex which does a much
better job of thinking ahead, planning, correctly analyzing what
drives what, etc.

The challenge of managing information better requires a higher order
of thinking than the basil ganglia provides.  It requires the involvement
of the prefrontal cortex which supports both planning and making decision
based upon data (versus habit or comfort).  There’s a great article by
Schwartz, Gaito & Lennic that covers this if you are interested in knowing more.

Bottom Line:
Adopting new systems to use information for better management outcomes
regularly encounters resistance.  Often voiced as, “It has to be
easy or I’m not doing it,” it is accompanied by strong concerns about
the time involved and little interest in exploring the value or
returns.  That resistance reveals an interesting disclosure of the value
system, and which part of the brain is being emphasized, by those
struggling with the perceived work of developing new information
management habits.

The good news is that you control the habit center that pushes back on
new behaviors, not the other way around, it just requires some time
and work to replace the old habits and reach a new equilibrium.
So beware when you hear yourself saying “it has to be easy”, that’s
likely your habit center talking, and it doesn’t do a great job of
planning for the future or adapting to change.

This week we’ve been doing a major launch and ran into the familiar
concern, “how do we get people to use the software once we buy it?”
Most people miss one simple tactic that works wonders, which we’ll
cover in this blog.

First of all, there are a number of things you can do to improve
utilization, depending on the user group, the organizational culture,
and how clearly and compellingly you can address the questions of
“Why do I need/have to learn to use this software now?” and
“What’s in it for me?”.  See the links at the bottom of this blog for
references.

So what’s the single most effective thing you can do?  What really
increases adoption… in just 10 work days?

You may not believe this, but it’s using the software in meetings.

This is particularly true for any program that involves project planning,
collaboration, task management, etc… e.g. ManagePro & MProLite.

Let me give you 3 quick reasons why using the software in meetings
is so directly tied to user adoption:

1.  First of all, using the software in a meeting that occurs regularly,
preferably weekly, indicates (proof) that you (management) are
regularly using the “new program.”  A majority of users always wait
to see if the people who bought or mandate using the software are
really serious about it.  E.g. will it be a passing fade and die out in a
month.  Using it regularly in a meeting cuts through all of that right
up front.

2. Using it in a meeting immediately exposes who is keeping up with
updates and data entry (two primary indicators of adoption).  You
want the public visibility (transparency) to work for you.  It is a
powerful double motivator of recognition and embarrassment, when
a user’s updates are either present and well written or missing. 
People respond to this motivator really quickly.

3.  Using the software in meetings give you the opportunity to redefine
attendence rights based upon software adoption.  Most people do
not want to be excluded from meetings.  When you make attendance
conditional on having their inputs into the software you are referencing
in the meeting, it becomes an additional powerful shaper of behavior.

For even more effect, and you usually only have to do this once,
ask the first person who hasn’t updated their part of the software as
you reach that part of the meeting agenda, to leave the meeting and
return after they have completed their update.  No one likes to be
“fired from the meeting”, and this sends a big time message to
everyone else that the rules have changed in a way that gets the
point across 100 times more powerfully than asking, threatening,
pleading with people to use the software.

Bottom Line:
The most effective way to increase user adoption is to use the
software within the meeting process.  The emotional drivers are:
proof, transparency resulting in recognition/embarrassment, and
new meeting attendence requirements.  With ManagePro, we just
use a project to display the contents on ManagePro on the screen,
and use the program to function as both the agenda and immediate
data source for discussion and action items.

Links:
Software Adoption and Innovation
Meeting Management

Software adoption, change management, implementing innovation… it all has some striking similarities.  Time has slipped by and as the year wraps up I didn’t want to miss putting up a quick summary of the recent blogs on this whole process, and in particular software adoption.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and I hope in this case it’s at least worth several hundred.  I created this picture to underscore and pull together a number of the themes that drive any change or innovation process, including software adoption.  Themes that I’ve been covering in the last half dozen blogs.

 Here’s  a couple of take-aways that hopefully do well by you in the coming year:

1. There is no single reason why people adopt change – in fact different sub-groups within any organization adopt change for very different reasons.  If you’re in charge of driving it, pay attention to your audience and depending on where you are in the lifecycle, adjust your message and appeal to the emotional drivers that are in play.

2. Be careful of over-depending on the interest and time investment of executive sponsors, as this often declines as an important driver before the adoption process has become imbedded across enough of the organization to continue on its own.  E.g. you need more than a good sponsor, you need to use a process that works.

3. Emotions are important drivers of the change process, see my earlier blogs for a description of how to address the emotional drivers for each group.

Have a great 2009 and lots of success with all of the changes and software adoption opportunities you pursue.

 Links:
Politics, Emotion and Buy-in

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Fear

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Attraction

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Discomfort

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.