50 Reasons Not to Change

Change is frightening for many. It removes us from our comfort zones and  challenges us to think of new ways of doing things. Hopefully change is something that happens to all of us, but as we know it is often avoided and we do so with a variety of excuses.

1. How do you react when you hear colleagues using some of the excuses listed in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic?

My personal pet peeve is hearing "we've always done it this way." It really does drive me nuts. My initial resonse is to ask "does that mean it cannot be done more efficiently?" It is rare that things cannot be improved upon, but even if the examination determines that a particular system component is working correctly that does mean that it should be exempt from future examination. The world is constantly changing and what works today might not work tommorrow. There needs to be constant feedback and examination of processes.

"It needs committee study." I hear this and I know that nothing will be done...ever. Languishing in committee is the death knell of any proposed change. Yes I get that topics need to be discussed and data gathered but to consistently refer to committee tells me that you are unable to make a decision.

2. Do you ever use any of these excuses yourself?

I am often hampered by lack of equipment so I have avoided some change by using that excuse. In my defense the proposed changes did not include the equipment and support needed to carry them out. I can only devise so many workarounds before the change is worse than the problem it was meant to fix.

3. How can you overcome the thinking that creates those responses to change efforts?

It can be very difficult to overcome these entrenched mentalities. Often cognitive dissonace sets in and the target becomes even MORE resistant to change. In many ways this has to be overcome before the change process really starts. In other words, the target has to see a need for change. In the private sector falling sales or monetary losses will often drive change. Even then, there will be resistance and you will probably lose some people depending on the scope of the change.

Once change is in progress it may be that you have to employ coercion techniques, persuasion, compromise, or even outright directive approaches to overcome entrenchement. I prefer reasoned discussions but often people become emotionally invested in their positions, then I find it useful to explore the whats-in-it-for-them portion of the equation. That way they are able to transfer emotions to the new concept.

4. Do you agree with Seth Godin’s concept that change is driven by tribes?

A bigger discussion can be found here where a comparison of Godlin's Tribe Theory and Watt's approach to Influence can be found. Tribe theory is based on a interlocking relationships and those relationships are not always clearly defined. As with any tribe there are a mulitude of variables in play among those relationships such as politics, friendships, romances, and any other human to human interaction possible. This isn't particulary new but it does help frame the discussion in a way that stops setting such clear views boundaries of leadership and influence. And THAT is something with which I can agree. Leading people takes more than strategy (thought that has to be there) it takes an understanding of the relationships and connections among the followers.

5. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

I work for an organization that can be very slow to change. There aren't a great deal of external motivators in play to force change. This has led to a great many entrenched managers. Understanding how these paradigms of resistance have been put in place has been instrumental in trying to change my small corner of the world.