The Emotional Side of Human Beings in Rational Organizations

When implementing change programs four conditions are necessary for employees to change their behaviours:
 
a) Storyline – employees must understand the reason for the change and agree with it;
b) Role modelling – employees must see the leadership team behaving in the new way;
c) Reinforcing mechanisms – systems, processes and incentives must be aligned with the new behaviour;
d) Capability building – employees must have the skills required to make the desired changes.
 
It seems simply good common sense, but this is exactly where things start going wrong. Rational organizations who attempt to implement the four conditions by applying “common sense” typically disregard certain, sometimes emotional but predictable, elements of human nature. Here below some insights into how human nature gets in the way of applying the four conditions required for behavioural change.

Storyline

What motivates leaders doesn’t necessarily motivate employees?
 

There are two types of change stories consistently told by leaders in organizations. The first is the “good to great” story, the second is the “turnaround” story. These stories are both rational and quite often they fail to have the expected impact. When employees are asked what motivates them at work the answer is usually among the following impact:

• on society (for instance, building the community),
• on customers (for example, providing outstanding service),
• on the working team (for example, creating a caring environment),
• on “me” (my development, paycheck, bonus).

What leaders tend to communicate does not usually tap into the workforce’s motivators for putting extra energy into the change program. Leaders have to craft a change story that covers the aspects that motivate employees. In doing so, they can free up positive energy that would otherwise remain latent in the organization.

• Employees have to own the story, this is because of human nature: when we choose for ourselves, we are far more committed to the outcome. Rational leaders must acknowledge that the desired change comes through a sense of ownership from all the people involved in it.

Role modelling

Usually change management programs suggest leaders role model the desired change and mobilize a group of ambassadors or influencers to drive change deep into the organization. Unfortunately, this does not necessarily deliver the desired impact.

• Leaders usually commit themselves to personally role modelling the desired behaviours. And then, in practice, nothing significant changes. The reason for this is that most executives don’t count themselves among the ones who need to change. Change management programs assume that executives’ role modelling is a matter of will or skill, the reality is that the bottleneck to role modelling is knowing what to change at a personal level.
• Almost all change-management programs place importance on identifying and mobilizing those in the organization who either by role or personality, or both, have influence over how others think and behave. However, success depends less on how persuasive a few selected influencers are and more on how receptive the organization is to the change.

Reinforcing mechanisms

Change management programs emphasize the importance of reinforcing and embedding desired changes in structures, processes, systems, target settings, and incentives. To be effective, however, these mechanisms must consider the emotional side of people.

• In making any change to company structures, processes, systems, and incentives, leaders should pay attention to employees’ sense of fairness in the change process and its intended outcome. Particular care should be taken where changes affect how employees interact with one another (such as headcount reductions and talent-management processes) and with customers (sales incentive programs, call centre redesigns).

Capability building

Change management programs emphasize the importance of building the skills and talent needed for the desired change. Though hard to argue with, in practice good intentions are not enough.

• Skill-building programs are based on interactive simulations and role plays, and commitments are made by participants regarding what they will “practice” back in the workplace. But very few keep their commitments. This lack of follow-through is usually not due to ill intent: it is because the time and energy required to do something additional, or even to do something in a new way, simply don’t exist in the busy day-to-day schedules of most employees. This failure to create the space for practice back in the workplace dooms most training programs to deliver returns that are far below their potential. There are a number of enhancements to traditional training approaches in order to convert the day-to-day practice into capability-building processes, such as:
  • training should not be a one-off event; classroom training programs should be spread over a series of learning forums and fieldwork should be assigned in between.
  • it is important to create fieldwork assignments that link directly to the day jobs of participants, requiring them to practice new mindsets and skills in relevant ways.