Igniting the Openness to Change
| 27 | Jun |
| 2013 |
Kickstarting movement toward change requires an empathetic,
choice-driven “challenge.”
This post was written by the Greenlight Research Institute Staff.
The challenge is usually given at an offsite session where leaders review the current state of the business (financial results, competitive position, market share data, etc.) to really “bring home” the need for change. The point is not to incite panic or lay blame but to assume responsibility as leaders and issue a call to action.
When designing the challenge, there are a few things to keep in mind. It should be specific, realistic and feature a short-term measurable goal (ideally, 90 to 120 days). Freedom of choice is a necessary prerequisite of sustainable change – so the challenge has to involve choice. This happens on two levels: 1) Participation must be voluntary; and 2) The specificity of the challenge and short-term goal doesn't fully describe how to execute it. Better results are achieved when you leave room for experimentation, improvisation and individual work styles.
Giving people a role in designing the solution is key. Dr. Amy F. T. Arnsten, professor of Neurobiology and Psychology at Yale, has ample research that demonstrates just how important the feeling of control is to us. On some level, we all resist being told what to do. Arnsten's laboratory has shown that when tasks are dictated to a person, the brain's prefrontal cortex – the frontal lobe’s problem-solving, emotional and behavioral regulator – exhibits a dip in cognitive functioning. We think less, not more – and certainly not creatively. Surprisingly enough, the sense of being in control is what matters. Even when the feeling of control is merely an illusion, Arnsten says, "Our cognitive functions are preserved."
Framing the Challenge
How the challenge is framed influences participation levels. The research of Sendhil Mullainathan, Economics professor at Harvard, shows that we rarely assess the absolute value of each behavioral alternative in front of us. Instead, we are swayed by how an alternative is positioned relative to other alternatives.
At Ferrazzi Greenlight, we have witnessed this dynamic numerous times with clients. Frame a challenge as an “investment” (i.e. something that involves risk) and people display risk-aversion – and an unwillingness to change. Frame it as a “consumption” instead – in other words, look at what you're doing already and consider this new alternative simply as a reallocation of existing time and resources – and buy-in becomes much easier.
Most importantly, a leader has to be very transparent about what the challenge will require of him or her personally. The challenge won't motivate anyone if it is delivered by an emotionally remote leader, unable (or unwilling) to communicate with candor, humility and vulnerability. Unless leaders share their own emotional stake in the change – saying, in effect, "I am one of you, and I feel your frustration. I share your desire to do a more joyful job than the one you've been given." – they will never gain empathy and emotional buy-in that leads to personal commitment.
The effects of such unprecedented candor are immediate and profound. When a leader states explicitly what steps he or she will take toward that short-term measurable goal, the organization achieves "porosity" – an advanced state, characterized by the humming of creativity in everyone's prefrontal cortex, of willingness to entertain new ideas and to absorb new information.
Mintzberg described the ideal leader's mindset throughout this critical challenge stage as a willingness to "get dirt under the fingernails." They must cut right to the quick, inspiring others to do likewise. In fact, at the end of this phase, many employees "pledge" their commitment to a series of missions they will complete in response. More on that in upcoming posts. Next up: The collaborative coaching support system that drives and shifts habitual behavior.
This post was written by the Greenlight Research Institute Staff.
Previous posts in our Change
Acceleration series explored the significance of purpose
and behavior
– think of those as the necessary preconditions and mindsets for a successful
change initiative. Now, we turn toward the rallying kickstart that gets everyone
working toward a clear, specific goal. What we at Ferrazzi Greenlight call "the
challenge" is the nuts-and-bolts event that leaders set in motion to help their
organization put structure and form around a desired sea-change.
The challenge is a way to ignite action. Managers give people
"permission" to behave differently and publicly announce support of the desired
new behaviors, but that’s not enough. Success depends on management's ability to
encourage others to rise to the occasion and sustain progress because a safe
haven has been created for them to grow.
In an interview about a decade ago, professor and
management theorist Henry Mintzberg echoed this general idea when he was asked a
simple question: “What do managers actually do all day?” Mintzberg
replied that a manager's job looked underwhelming, even undisciplined: "They get
interrupted a lot." But, he said, what often looked like too many meetings – and
rarely enough action – masked a larger purpose central to a leader's ability to
influence. Managers had the job of interpreting signals from the outside world
to help their organization decide how to respond. "In a sense, they manage
information in order to encourage people to take action." [1]
The Importance of ChoiceThe challenge is usually given at an offsite session where leaders review the current state of the business (financial results, competitive position, market share data, etc.) to really “bring home” the need for change. The point is not to incite panic or lay blame but to assume responsibility as leaders and issue a call to action.
When designing the challenge, there are a few things to keep in mind. It should be specific, realistic and feature a short-term measurable goal (ideally, 90 to 120 days). Freedom of choice is a necessary prerequisite of sustainable change – so the challenge has to involve choice. This happens on two levels: 1) Participation must be voluntary; and 2) The specificity of the challenge and short-term goal doesn't fully describe how to execute it. Better results are achieved when you leave room for experimentation, improvisation and individual work styles.
Giving people a role in designing the solution is key. Dr. Amy F. T. Arnsten, professor of Neurobiology and Psychology at Yale, has ample research that demonstrates just how important the feeling of control is to us. On some level, we all resist being told what to do. Arnsten's laboratory has shown that when tasks are dictated to a person, the brain's prefrontal cortex – the frontal lobe’s problem-solving, emotional and behavioral regulator – exhibits a dip in cognitive functioning. We think less, not more – and certainly not creatively. Surprisingly enough, the sense of being in control is what matters. Even when the feeling of control is merely an illusion, Arnsten says, "Our cognitive functions are preserved."
Framing the Challenge
How the challenge is framed influences participation levels. The research of Sendhil Mullainathan, Economics professor at Harvard, shows that we rarely assess the absolute value of each behavioral alternative in front of us. Instead, we are swayed by how an alternative is positioned relative to other alternatives.
At Ferrazzi Greenlight, we have witnessed this dynamic numerous times with clients. Frame a challenge as an “investment” (i.e. something that involves risk) and people display risk-aversion – and an unwillingness to change. Frame it as a “consumption” instead – in other words, look at what you're doing already and consider this new alternative simply as a reallocation of existing time and resources – and buy-in becomes much easier.
Most importantly, a leader has to be very transparent about what the challenge will require of him or her personally. The challenge won't motivate anyone if it is delivered by an emotionally remote leader, unable (or unwilling) to communicate with candor, humility and vulnerability. Unless leaders share their own emotional stake in the change – saying, in effect, "I am one of you, and I feel your frustration. I share your desire to do a more joyful job than the one you've been given." – they will never gain empathy and emotional buy-in that leads to personal commitment.
The effects of such unprecedented candor are immediate and profound. When a leader states explicitly what steps he or she will take toward that short-term measurable goal, the organization achieves "porosity" – an advanced state, characterized by the humming of creativity in everyone's prefrontal cortex, of willingness to entertain new ideas and to absorb new information.
Mintzberg described the ideal leader's mindset throughout this critical challenge stage as a willingness to "get dirt under the fingernails." They must cut right to the quick, inspiring others to do likewise. In fact, at the end of this phase, many employees "pledge" their commitment to a series of missions they will complete in response. More on that in upcoming posts. Next up: The collaborative coaching support system that drives and shifts habitual behavior.
Share
Add new comment