As we were reminded in a recent post a little over a week ago, being open to new possibilities can be rewarding. It certainly was for my daughter’s friend who came to realize that by implementing a different approach to food management she would change her overall backpacking experience for the better. In other words, a seemingly small change can really be a big one in disguise.
Of course, getting to the point where people will consider ‘change’ is key. Sometimes that’s a tough nut to crack. There are a million reasons why people resist change. My experience tells me that ‘comfort with the status-quo’ is near or at the top of most people’s list. That’s why ‘this is the way we do it’ seems like a mantra in some organizations.
I’ve found that there are generally two types of people when it comes to change—those that tend to be open to it and those who aren’t. Here are some characteristics of:
Those who tend to be open to change: they’re curious, they’ll mess with the status-quo if a new approach holds promise, they don’t mind rocking the boat, they tend to equate change with opportunity, or they see ‘change’ as part of their legacy (a driver for some senior executives).
Those who tend to avoid change: they’re not terribly curious, they’re confident that the status-quo is sufficient for their needs, they aren’t ‘boat rockers’, they tend to equate change with risk, or (frankly) they just don’t want to be bothered.
Let’s be fair here. Life’s experience and personal temperament has influenced many to be risk-avoiders. Many have gotten burnt after having stuck their neck out. Others just don’t have the stomach for it. And sometimes the proposed change doesn’t make sense—the timing is wrong, there are bigger fish to fry, the proposed change is ill-conceived, or a myriad of other perfectly good reasons.
Let’s face it, leaders and managers (especially in organizations steeped in hierarchy) who are risk-adverse will throw cold water on most change efforts. That’s unfortunate, but it happens. If you’re in one of those organizations, it makes your efforts to improve things that much harder. (Note: Chip and Dan Heath’s book Switch is a thought-provoking treatise on change—personal, organizational and everything in between. Chip and Dan share several experiences of those who faced great odds—including resistive bosses or cultures—and made a difference.)
I’m currently working with an organization that is world-class in their management practices. Their approaches are reflected in a myriad of best-practices lists around the world. Yet, they strive for perfection. In learning about how they approach things, their people will explain (in effect) “this is the way we do things, but….” Virtually everyone in their organization thinks about it this way.
This organization has ‘proved’ many of their approaches. In other words, their approaches work. They get great results. If ever a company would be a candidate for complacency it would be them. Yet, they realize they’ve got a ways to go. They aren’t about to rest on their laurels. That’s why you hear the word ‘but’ as a qualifier when they explain how they do things. They want to learn from others. They want to recognize their blind-spots—to the extent they exist. In short, they want to get better.
What a different approach from those who hold a bias for the status-quo! Being open to new possibilities is important—especially in today’s current business climate. Great companies think differently. This is one such example. In my next post I’ll explain how the mind-sets play into all this. As you’ll see, they do—prominently!