Playing with explosives: influencing your organisation’s status quo
If culture trumps strategy, how do most changes have any chance at all?
“Homeostasis: the ability or tendency of a living organism, cell, or group to keep the conditions inside it the same despite any changes in the conditions around it, or this state of internal balance.”
Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/homeostasis
Defining organisational status quo
Trying to unpick the “way things are done around here”? Complicated, isn’t it? You may get a sense of the status quo in a stakeholder meeting. You may sense this subtle undercurrent — that everything ought to be done this way. Maybe it’s for the good of the whole, and you were along for the ride. This is a kind of organisational status quo — old habits die hard, as does resistance to change.
The allure of organisational status quo is powerful. Individuals and teams may have a bias in how they perceive your future state. This bias is known as the “status quo bias” ¹. The status quo bias is a cognitive bias in decision making that causes people to prefer the status quo because it is familiar. The strength of this preference varies by the situation but can be large. Imagine if you designed a study of incentives. What if you asked your participants whether they would rather accept $5 today or $10 in a month. What would their response lean towards?
And what if the payment was delayed from a month to a year? Would you find that most people preferred the immediate cash flow over future income?
Are we are all walking, impulsive bags of jelly?
Is our behaviour governed mainly by two fundamental forces: pleasure and impulse control? Do we do as we are incentivised? If so, it is a powerful predictor of everyone’s behaviour!
Our need to fit in is another powerful force. Alicea Lieberman and Kristen Duke mention multiple studies of incentives:
“… the structure of an incentive — as either a surcharge or a discount — sends a subtle message to people about what others think and do. The work shows that when people encounter surcharges (vs. discounts), they perceive that the incentivised behavior is a stronger social norm.” ²
Incentives can be used to change behaviour, and in a less considered way it will reflect what is going on in the environment.
Over 20 years ago, I sat in a marketing class. We learned about consumer behaviour, and one lesson that stood out was the Asch experiments. Led by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, the Asch experiments illustrated peers’ power and the pressure on the individual to conform ³ ⁴.
The experiment? A group of students sit in a class, in front of three lines of differing length. A fourth line is also shown and is separate from the other three. Each student is an actor, and have collectively agreed that the fourth line is the same length as one of the three lines. The only problem? They agree that the fourth line is the same length as a line that is not the same length. They agree on this incorrect estimation on purpose. Another (unwitting) student enters the class.
A question is put to the group. Which of the three lines is the fourth line closest to in size? In a control group, the ‘peers’ do not pressure the newly-added student. In the non-control condition, the ‘peers’ point to their pre-agreed, completely incorrect line. The newly-added student can either conform and agree with everyone, or make their mind up.
With no pressure, the newly-added student rarely makes a mistake ⁵. They choose the correct line length. But with peer pressure? Results vary! Asch’s experiment has been replicated and dissected by gender and other relevant constructs.
So how does this understanding of human foibles relate to us? I’m sure you are as keen as I am to position a future state to your organisation. With minimal change resistance… and without anyone getting their fingers and toes blown off! Ignore or overlook specific cultural cues in some workplaces, and trouble escalates rapidly.
It’s easy to go down a deep rabbit hole of related concepts. You could study for years about people’s less-than-rational behaviour in social settings. For example groupthink, attribution theory, social norms and the role of conformity in evil acts such as genocide. But let’s keep it light — and focus on practical application for intrepid change professionals (like us)!
Navigating the cultural powderkeg
How do we position our future state with our stakeholders
Here are several cues which can help you position your future state.
Tempo and action bias
What is your organisation’s operating tempo? Get-in-done, need-it-yesterday? Or at the other end of the scale? With the latter, a simple request for action may need a meeting. This meeting needs a clear agenda, and at least a few day’s notice. Your meeting got postponed? It will happen ! A decision may — or may not — be made in the forum.
Ironically, everyone looks busy and pressed for time regardless of operating tempo.
Also, consider peak operational periods. For example:
- Researchers — grant proposal submission deadlines
- School administrators — brief time windows to read communications in the school office
- Depot workers, hospital staff, shift workers — early morning or late night time windows (start or end of shift)
Action bias may vary between individuals in your organisation. Some have a get-it-done spirit — a strong bias towards action. Yet this works both ways — those with a strong action bias are likely to expect the same speed, urgency, and quality from you. Action bias can also mean the importance your project has on the organisation. The byproduct? The relative support (in timely, comprehensive expertise) that nominated operational employees will provide.
Operational routines and effective communication mediums
What is it about the status quo and current state that works well for your stakeholders? What operational routines and beliefs are sacrosanct? A significant transport organisation may be well-run and predictable. Many employees value this well-run, predictable environment. So a new scheduling system is likely to run counter to these values. No matter how much leadership sells the need for transformation. Or at a prosaic level, a clear business case and a need to replace end-of-life systems.
Workforce composition also plays a part in operational routines. A permanent workforce with long tenure, intermingled with casual employees with little security? A remote workforce of contingent professionals? Varying workforce composition plays a part in an organisation’s hold on prevailing operational routines and norms. In other words, your workforce composition may influence an organisation’s capacity to change. May, as it’s not accurate to generalise or stereotype permanent, casual or contingent employees’ ability to adapt to change.
Different types of workers will pay attention to various mediums. Your job is to work these out. Thankfully that’s a straightforward task. A well-placed HR Business Partner, operational leader or employee representative can help here. Walk in your target audience’s shoes. Your research may reveal common behaviours in each target audience. For example:
- Researchers — learn of new initiatives at a faculty morning tea or lunch. Do they pay inordinate attention to (doctoral-qualified) technical staff
- School administrators — read an informal newsletter created by an influential employee association
- Depot and factory workers — use computers infrequently, yet read on-site posters. Do all workers listen to leader-led start-of-shift briefings?
- Hospital staff — invite speakers to early-morning staff briefing forums. Does each hospital unit have an internal hospital staff newsletter?
- Executives — do their assistants brief their executive?
These examples do not suggest that leaders don’t cascade messages to their employees. Don’t assume this consistently takes place!
And what about business partners or relationship managers servicing a major employee organisation? Partners don’t always have to occupy a senior position in the formal organisation chart either. Well-briefed and on your side, can these individuals operate as your change ambassador?
Conflict style and lousy behaviour
John Gottman, a relationship researcher, observes married couples and predicts if they will remain married. Gottman cites four reasons a relationship may break down (‘the four horsemen’) ⁶. These reasons — criticism, contempt, stonewalling and defensiveness — might apply to organisational life too. These reasons speak to both accepted (and even valued) conflict styles and tolerated bad behaviours.
- Criticism: Academics may wield hostilities masked as constructive criticism…. under the guise of intellectual freedom. Executives may think they are “telling it as it is”. Or at the healthier end, criticism is respectful, and an engaging debate of issues, not the people involved
- Contempt: What change professional hasn’t presented at stakeholder engagement and been met with crossed arms, rolling eyes and other contemptuous behaviours? Hopefully, these behaviours are mere expressions of frustrations — temporary and a move towards constructive behaviour
- Stonewalling: You need a decision — or even a meeting. Maybe you need that intranet site up today, as you have several deliverables dependent on it. “They” know the urgency and context. Yep, stonewalling isn’t fun for the recipient.
- Defensiveness: Angry stakeholders, protesting every detail of your proposed future state. Is it because… deep down… they perceive your change as a threat? Does the future state remove a large chunk of their informal power?
What destructive conflict styles and other behaviours does your organisation tolerate? The answers shed light on the extra meetings and resources you may need to navigate these troubled waters. For example, got a stakeholder with a penchant for the “four horsemen”? And they decided to attack a junior team member? Time to resource post-engagement team debriefings. Better yet, rotate team members engaging with that stakeholder. Or a quiet word with the stakeholder. Life is too short.
Engagement windows and development culture
There will be times during the year when your target audience is more ‘open’ to your engagement than others. Do you understand these time ‘windows’? Not only are there preferred times during the week, but also the year. Thinking of challenging these engagement ‘windows’? Good luck. For example, school terms and operating calendars influence when school employees can and will see you. Scientists, lawyers, artists, journalists — every employee group have their own annual engagement windows.
These windows may be subject to gatekeepers. Your organisation’s Project Management Office (PMO) may have an oversight. Or other ‘gatekeeper’. Who else can see concurrent projects, engagement schedules, and touchpoints on operational teams? If so, has your team sought a ‘green light’ to engage certain teams at given points in time?
Some organisations may not have this level of maturity and capability. Thus tread carefully and tentatively, using your network of operational leaders and business partners. This way, you can explore what engagement times during the year work. Or we can ignore nuances. Proposing a series of awareness workshops for financial employees at financial year-end? Good luck with that one.
It’s tricky; Change Managers focus on their projects, not organisation-wide change capability. Your organisation’s “hard wiring” (i.e. Change capability) may need an upgrade ⁷! You may not wield the influence to make immediate changes to this capability. For now, here’s what you could consider:
- Does your change approach leave the organisation in a better state?
- How can your organisation’s PMO and Organisation Development teams illustrate cultural norms and “path of least resistance” approaches?
- Could you “cross-promote” your change with similar initiatives and their leaders? For example, leading change for a cyber security initiative? Can you “cross-promote” your initiative with the Chief Risk Officer or Workplace Health and Safety Director?
- Thinking through how you make your change stick — two years after go-live. How can you position your long-term “sustainability” thinking about your change with operational stakeholders, including business partners and teams involved in employee onboarding? What would new employees, or those changing positions, need to know about your proposed change two years after go-live?
Recap
We aren’t usually the ones that handle change capability. As change professionals, we have the change stream in our project’s scope. Yet can your change contribute to positive perceptions about change in your organisation? What can you learn about your organisation’s culture to minimise change resistance… and anyone losing any fingers or toes from a misstep in leading change?
Your call to action
How can you break down your organisation’s culture into behaviours and implicit rewards that either help or hinder your change?
Our book — The Change Manager’s Companion — is available now. You can also check out our online course on Change Management.
Reference List
1. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. J Econ Perspect. 1991;5(1):193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193
2. Lieberman A, Duke K. Research: Why We’re Incentivised by Discounts and Surcharges. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/02/research-why-were-incentivized-by-discounts-and-surcharges. Published 2020. Accessed January 7, 2021.
3. Asch SE. Opinions and Social Pressure. Sci Am. 1955;193(5):31–35. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1155–31
4. Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr Gen Appl. 1956;70(9):1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718
5. Asch conformity experiments — Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments#Results. Accessed January 7, 2021.
6. Lisitsa E. The Four Horsemen: The Antidotes. The Gottman Institute. https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-the-antidotes/. Published 2013. Accessed January 7, 2021.
7. de la Boutetiere, Montagner A. Unlocking success in digital transformations. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/unlocking-success-in-digital-transformations. Published 2018. Accessed January 3, 2021.
