Faced with a problem that cannot be ignored, budget and deadline constraints often push wellmeaning decision makers toward the fastest, cheapest fix. A quick fix treats the symptoms, but rarely addresses the underlying problem. This pattern is described by the “shifting the burden” systems archetype. Decision makers recognize a problem and see two possible courses of action. One is a symptomatic approach, which appears to be quicker and cheaper. The other is a fundamental approach, which requires more expenditure and time. Taking the quicker, cheaper route alleviates the symptoms, at least for a while. However, it also draws time, attention, and investment away from the fundamental solution. Worse, failing to tackle the fundamentals nearly guarantees that the problem will return. When it does, the reaction is to reimplement the symptomatic fix—further drawing attention and investment away from the fundamentals.
Shifting the burden is all too common in implementing an organizational change. Since only about 1550% of change initiatives succeed, employees are often skeptical of an initiative’s staying power. A fundamental way to address this skepticism would be to demonstrate value from the change as well as management support for it (e.g., create small test cases, measure results, reward successes, and learn from failures). This fundamental approach takes time and money, both of which can be intimidating. A media campaign—which also makes people aware of the change and could include information on why it is needed—may look like a good alternative. No one turns to the media campaign because they believe it is better than the fundamental approach, rather because it is easily managed and measured, and it shows results quicker. A media campaign goes only so far, and if it is not backed by the fundamentals, the skepticism is soon back. The kneejerk response is a bigger, better media campaign, drawing even more energy and resources away from the fundamental demonstration of value and support from management. The unintended side effect is a vicious circle that deepens employees’ doubt and skepticism, making it even harder for the fundamental solution to be effective.
Breaking this cycle takes deliberate action. A company implementing doordie improvements in their manufacturing processes to reduce inventory and still meet customer demand took such deliberate action.1 The firm had experienced many “flash in the pan” change initiatives in the past. Employees’ experience of previous change initiatives was a big announcement with insufficient followup and no real change. This history lead to employee skepticism about both the process improvement program and the company’s commitment to it. The VP responsible for the program led by example. He took careful steps to make sure his team understood the initiative and were all effective advocates for it. The team made certain that needed infrastructure was identified and quickly put into place. They were actively involved in bringing people on board who they felt were critical to implementing the process improvements. There were resisters to the program, and the VP himself dealt with them in an open and nonthreatening way. He either incorporated their ideas where appropriate, or used their objections as opportunities to explain the process and gain more alignment. This management commitment reduced employee skepticism and brought people on board to the change. Doubt was eradicated when employees saw reduced inventory, less expediting, and better customer service. The company reaped the rewards of successful process improvement by addressing employee skepticism headon and in a fundamental way.
Similar Posts:
- Is Resistance to Change Necessarily Bad
- Collaboration and Commitment
- More Content is not the Answer
- Leveraging Insights from Systems Thinking
- The Learning Self: Understanding the Potential for Transformation
