The simplest organizational change initiatives are for those obvious problems. People want to change when they find something broken. But when leadership believes there is a better way to do something and the team is perfectly satisfied with what they’ve always done, it’s a hard sell. Yes, the current system may not be ideal, but it’s working well enough. It’s familiar, and it’s good enough for now.
It’s a frustrating position to be in, and there is no sympathy from either side’s point of view. Leadership can’t understand why people don’t want to help themselves by embracing change. People can’t understand why leadership wants to ruin a good thing, even if it’s not extraordinary. What’s worse? Each viewpoint is rational and thus complicates the dynamic. It’s also difficult for either side to forgive the other change is unnecessary but forced only breeds resentment; complacency means all this improvement is left on the table.
The “Good Enough” Problem
The greatest source of resistance to change is that current practices are “good enough.” People aren’t lazy; they just see results that meet standards. If someone can produce work on time that meets specs without much hassle, why should they change? If quality meets subpar expectations, and nobody is sitting around in a corner stressed out, then what’s the issue?
But here’s the deal: “good enough” isn’t necessarily efficient. It may simply work because the team works around the limitations of a current system or process so thoroughly, in fact, that those limitations don’t feel like limitations anymore. For example, they spend three times as long doing manual functions that could effectively be established through technology and automation because they’ve settled upon finding their solutions so quickly that it feels functional enough and cutting-edge intervention seems futile.
This is clear with technology adoption. Teams have manual processes down to an art that practically saves time and energy. But when someone suggests implementing better technology or systems, instead, they laugh and suggest that their manual way of life works just fine because, from their perspective, it does. They’ve never experienced the alternative. They’ve never been forced to sit through arduous training to truly appreciate the process that seems tedious and take time away from doing what’s going to be easier anyway.
Understanding What’s Really Getting in the Way
Before forcing change, it’s helpful to understand what’s keeping people from adopting it. It’s not resistance to improvement (generally speaking) but rather exposure to new growth while sacrificing peace that’s upsetting. Current processes may not be ideal, but they’re controllable. New processes introduce uncertainty, learning curves, and malice back at old practices if new methods don’t pan out as expected for management but pan out perfectly for operation.
No one wants to look stupid trying out a new system while not accomplishing their regular work responsibilities. They worry that they’ll get lost in no-man’s-land with new methods instead of deadlines – time stolen from their inevitable stressors – and they worry that what was once easier through change hasn’t worked out for anyone else trying it before so why would it help them? These are not unreasonable concerns; at this point, they’re judgments based on failed transformations that claimed they’d never work again.
There’s also something concerning expertise that no one really wants to address out loud. However, it’s important that team members become invested in skills that cultivate success in existing systems; suggesting change makes them feel like their specialness no longer matters. For example, if someone is known as the expert of a certain function, it’s doubtful they’d fight for change since they’d feel as though their knowledge held no value even though they’d never admit it out loud.
Make the Case Without Lecture
It’s rarely effective for telling people that their current systems aren’t good enough while having the right to do so. Let’s be honest: It sounds condescending. Instead, indirectly help people see the pitfalls they haven’t noticed or assist them in verbalizing a frustration they can’t articulate.
Questions work better than statements. “What takes you the most time with this process?” “Where do you find mistakes?” “What would you want differently?” Instead of telling people that something is wrong and needs improvement – leading them to feel defensive – it’s better for them to discover problems by themselves for motivational efficiency than hear about something management wants them to do better for no benefit.
Thus, it becomes helpful in avoiding disingenuousness by making improvements relative to others’ pain points instead of challenges derived from their ineffectiveness. This rhetorical cheap shot places praise on less invasive means – importance on what’s easier – and it’s more effective than simply telling someone they’re ineffective in their role.
The Early Adopter Approach
Going for conversion and an overwhelming majority will fail – as early as it seems logical. Instead, find your few early adopters who want a better way and champion them first; let their experience – and some enthusiasm – speak for itself more than a directive from management.
Your early adopters should be respected members of the team – not necessarily the most junior members or those who pander desperately for management’s approval – but when someone who’s relatively believed offers positive evidence from mid-to-top champions of new processes – people will listen who otherwise would’ve dismissed an interoffice memo blindly.
This process also allows for testing before wider rollout. The early adopters will discover problem areas; they’ll get comfortable enough for other opinions to articulate what types of training and support they can use best. Criticism comes from collaborative champions rather than management who argue all points but haven’t been through it before.
How to Demonstrate Value In Ways That Matter
Many times, those championing organizational change advocate new systems based on productivity gains or cost-efficiency or resource management that those doing the work don’t care about. Finishing work faster means more can get done – which translates into greater opportunities down the road – but for people finding work good enough on their own – and in physical proximity – the last thing they want is administrative advantage.
What matters most is ease of work; efficiency improves quality of life but if those doing it are bogged down by manual processes but happily knowing that’s their newfound skill set derived from years of hard work – then it means little from management’s perspective. Where are champions going to step in without meaningful relevance?
Work ethic plays a significant role here, and not everyone will appreciate new systems based on predetermined proclamations from once upstanding principles for self-reasonings learned through incremental probabilities over time.
There are frameworks like an ai adoption framework or similar change management strategies/programs that help find these individual motivations and proffer a more systematic approach than hoping a one-size-fits-all motivational messaging will matter.
Less Transition Costs
One of the most obvious barriers to implementation is the time needed to figure things out while upholding compliance with already expected workload. If a management structure supports the idea that teams should be expected to make changes mid-customer expectations without realizing it’s not even about resistance (it’s about logistics) – then there’s math involved.
There aren’t enough hours in the day.
There needs to be time – and space – to actually learn new skills to make this feasible. Whether that’s decreasing workload temporarily, bringing in temp help (which complicates old processes), or directly letting everyone know that there will be learning curves (decreased productivity) – there’s far more worth lending attention when it’s learned NOT as a punishment to those trying new things.
This means actual training – but not training where everyone sits through lectures and templates just so they can mark a box off on HR requirements – but rather hands-on specific-for-job training available to when people can really use them – just-in-time support instead of front-loaded – which begs so many hours of training and gets forgotten before real-time situations occur.
Create Accountability Without Punishment
Eventually, successful change requires some degree of expectation – and accountability – but this needs nuanced complexity where previously good systems have lapsed since management expected certain timelines when good enough? The easiest way is undercutting any punishments during this transitional time based on performance standards best left ignored until accountability is welcomed.
Maybe it’s necessitated blame under additional efforts; maybe it’s so necessary that extra effort becomes punitive upon interest unless a team member chooses to exert additional effort down the road – who cares? It’s ultimately make relative before conflicting against help.
This involves recognition. When people succeed at doing something new through change – even if they’re champions – they need credit – not reward or compensation – but enough visibility for others who’ve experienced something similar want similar praise.
Accept Partial Adoption
Not everyone will fully embrace change – and that’s okay. Some people need extensive positive proof with little to no downside until they’re ready; some won’t ever come along and trying to force them creates more problems than solutions.
Better to focus energy on willing adopters – and those easily convincing middle-of-the-road champions – to make it happen; sometimes less; sometimes great – with more resolution bringing more attention as time goes on and more success exists amidst social pressures instead of resisting space where stragglers exist.
The holdouts will increasingly become isolated – and unavailable – enough against majority opinions debating what’s best for everyone else only helps convince only helps champion others who should have used time better.
There’s also value in learning how these new ideas become best suited based on personal needs instead of adherence rigidly protecting development claims for what’s topical – but instead issues implemented effectively – and surprisingly aligned interests bring effective push after costs cut into what works best.
Manage the Long Game
Behavior takes time and often time in significantly longer stretches than management would like to believe. A rollout announcement is just the beginning of sustained adopted time it requires constant reinforcement support through long periods where setbacks and reversals might be inevitable.
People will revert back under stress or crunch time, which is normal this doesn’t mean management failed; it just means simplicity ruled as cognitive load became too high and anyone who’s tried breaking a habit personally knows humans don’t apply different standards not any faster weeks’ worth than necessary.
Therefore organizations that successfully make changes from systems like new technologies or adopting better methods need to treat this culture as long-term instead of episodic implementation worth celebrating over. Organizations who understand other teams content with good enough while recognizing gradual progress accordingly utilize patience that’s ultimately going to make a difference instead of sidestepping implementation effectiveness over basic stresses along the way all because someone was frustrated interim without equity relative logic elsewhere.
