Changing trouble-making change

December 1, 3:31 PMDallas Workforce Performance ExaminerTim Wright

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Dallas Workforce Performance Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Any change manager you know?

That statement is from Harold D. Stolovitch, PhD., in his column What to Do about Performance Troublemakers in the October issue of Talent Management.

While he refers to performance by an organization's "talent," I say engagement comes first, stimulates performance and leads to performance improvement. Consequently, if novelty, complexity, and abstractness hinder performance (improvement) -- and for sure, they do! -- then they are actually hindering the employee's motivation to be engaged.

The previous Houston Workforce Performance Examiner points out different reactions to change from different engagement types: highly engaged, non-engaged, and disengaged. Now, let's look at the factors Stolovitch points out. And let's talk about how managers can engage around those factors.

Novelty
Stolovitch says novelty tends to trigger negative reactions of avoidance and resistance. I suggest avoidance and resistance short-circuit engagement and therefore limit performance of the change intended.

Suggestion: If possible introduce the change, explain its reasons, and familiarize employees with its how-to's before its kickoff, if possible. Allow ample time for Q&A, provide information in various formats: e-mail, hardcopy, training, discussion boards. Remember C.O.R.E. Communication, opportunities, and resources can serve you well in helping your employees engage through the change.

Complexity
From Stolovitch: The more complex a requirement to perform is perceived, the more poorly people perform. He refers to cognitive instability, which means the employee doesn't feel he knows enough to perform the changed requirements. Pretty obvious that the fear of failure hampers the individual's willingness to perform. I suggest that engagement and willingness to perform are pretty synonymous.

Suggestion: Provide ample opportunities (hint, hint) for the know-bodies behind the change to explain, clarify, and reinforce the specifics of the change. By taking away the speed element implicit in "we must make this change happen now," you can eliminate the hindrance from complexity.

Abstractness
And Stolovitch says: "Abstractness"...[means] for employees, a lack of connection with their experiences and realities. His point is that such connection absences limit the person's ability to perform the changes. Agreed. I believe that is because they make it all the more difficult for the employee to see the why or how to wrap her arms around (aka, engage with) the change.

Suggestion: Since this relates to changes that are intangible (We're not talking about a new PC on everyone's desk!), prepare communications that clarify by making the change concrete. Comparisons, stories, analogies. Help the employees see not only desired results from the change, but understand workings of the process also.