Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Why are organizations so afraid for innovation and stay with traditional way of working?
Events
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
9 Answers
Gertjan, a phenomenal question.
Andrew, an excellent answer.
Historically, humans fear change. Heroclitus, I believe, was the first philosopher to attempt answer by stating (paraphrased) that the only constant that humans experience is change.
Notice the geo-political events of the last few months. Societies resist change as much as organizations do. It's our nature.
Innovators, entrepreneurs and early adopters are the agents of change (almost a cliche, now). I'm sure there are studies on the phsychological makeup of these individuals to be found; but thats not my main point. As Andrew observed, most people prefer known routine. We create routines and systems in organizations constantly. The larger the organization, the more this is so.
An innovator, whether singly or in group, has to first be able to prove return on change (ROc), perhaps in the form of ROi (Return on Investment) to key Centers of Influence (COI) in the organization. This might be an officer of the organization; it may be a key staff person. Once you've proven the benefit of change to COIs, it becomes much easier to distribute the anticipated benefits to the rest of the organization.
I grew up in Helena, Montana. The nearest city of comparable size (approx 35K) was over two hours away. There are people living there that have never traveled beyond 100 miles from town. Those type of people are the ones who crave routine the most, IMHO.
There's an old Asian saying that every action has a reaction to the seventh generation. Perhaps if innovators used that as a benchmark in messaging the benefits of proposed change, it would cause the potential change to be easily understood and accepted.
Change is risky and uncomfortable.
People inherently prefer comfort and implied safety to risk for hard-to-articulate gains.
Organizations prefer status quo (or change that they "control") because they understand how operate currently -- or, at least, they believe they do -- and they don't want any disruptions to potentially undermine their positions.
Not all innovation pans out. Not all changes succeed. Not all adjustments bring benefits. In short, change means work.
These are some of the thoughts that dominate most people during their waking hours, and possibly even the hours at rest.
While it is true that change is risky, a failure to change is also risky since change is happening all around you regardless of what you do or don't do. Therefore, we should be more vocal about the risk of not changing/adjusting to an ever-changing environment.
This *might* help people get over their fear of change and innovation.
FEAR. My MBA class studied a computer board manufacturer that was faced with an investment decision; should she invest $3 million and double sales to existing clients or not. We could not understand why she did not invest in the new manufacturing process. We discussed the case for an hour or more and then the professor introduced the owner who was sitting in the back of the class. Her former boss sold the company to her for a one dollar and he was her first and only customer. Spending $3 million of her money was not as easy as spending one dollar of her money. If I remember correctly, she did eventually buy the equipment.
Great replies. And, so far, we more or less agree.
But we see the opposite happening with new goodies like iPhone/iPad. This is an opposite reaction of human behaviour to avoid changes.
So why are individuals more open to change than organizations?
Gertjan, individuals are no more open to change than corporations (which are made up of individuals). More precisely, most people are open to change *they* initiate. Similarly, departments and organizations are much more open to change that they have initiated, than change that is thrust upon them from external sources.
The problem is, while an individual can decide upon a change they have decided upon, and act upon it will relatively little internal opposition, bringing about change in a group necessarily means that someone (or few) is initiating that change, while others are recipients of change that they did not initiate.
This is why a key component of change management in any setting is to get people to either buy-in to a change, or better yet, feel as though the change were their idea in the first place.
The iPhone/iPad phenomenon is not not a violation of change aversion, but rather proof of effective change management. Mr Jobs has developed a winning formula for making people think that they MUST have the next thing, even if the previous thing is working just fine. This is partly due to technology, partly to packaging/aesthetics, and partly to marketing/branding.
It is interesting that while we don't like change, we also don't like to be too different. Peer pressure is an effective part of marketing. (Everyone *else* is cool, and you can be too!)
http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker
Change takes a certain amount of risk. A company may sell you a product that has a claim to double your sales, but you won't know until you make that change.
Looking at a working business model; why would you change it? Is the risk worth the investment? What is the potential fall-out from this?
What a great discussion. Off to a meeting, but I'd like to see this dialogue delve into how to effectively create positive change management. My interest area is mostly in this area - as a consultant, how can positive change, initiated by an outsider, be welcomed and adopted by an organization?
I come across barriers to change frequently when consulting with clients and encouraging them to switch from a face-to-face meeting over to a web-conference.
I find that you really need to understand how that organization works - often to a level of knowledge higher than many of their employees.
Only then will your suggestions be taken on board as they have a business-case behind them.
Change in organization's has to happen because THEY want it to happen, not because the outsider wants it to happen. The outsider can simply direct the organization towards the change that is suggested.
I just read a book on marketing by Keith Chambers called "PULL". His main thesis is that you have the past, today and tomorrow and people like living in the past because it's comfortable.
You need to market something that will sit in the future (remarkable) so people can "pull" into the past (unremarkable). The remarkable must be something they really need or think they need, otherwise, why make the change.
So, change is a transformation from comfortable and unremarkable to an uncomfortable spot. Once that leap is made, it becomes part of comfortable and it isn't "change" anymore.
Think about it; it does make sense...
Answer This Question