“And they’re probably thinking, ‘here we go again.’” I said softly, reinforcing the point.
“No wonder nothing ever changes. I keep giving managers these books and I expect them to change their management style based on what the books say. I assume they’ll figure out what I want just by reading the book. But I never tell them I want them to change. I never tell them why I gave them the book in the first place or say what parts of the book I think we need to implement. I just assume they’ll figure out what they need to do differently.”
Paul had a look on his face that I’d seen many times before. It was the look of someone who knows he has made a mistake but he’s afraid it may be too late to fix it.
He continued, “It just dawned on me that every time I give these mangers a new book, they probably think I think they’re incompetent. Every new book I give them sends the message: ‘You’re inadequate. You’re not managing right.’ That’s not why I’m giving them the books. I’m just trying to . . .”
“You’re just trying to be helpful,” I said, finishing his sentence. “Don’t feel bad. You’re doing the right thing for the right reason. You just need to be OPEN about ‘why’ you’re giving your managers the books,” I said, pointing to the next rung on the Ladder.
I wrote the word OPEN on the second rung.
“I’ll tell you about the OPEN rung on the Ladder in a minute,” I said. “But first I want to connect what you just learned about giving out too many books to a point we discussed earlier about implementing too many changes.
“Just as your managers respond negatively to the numerous books you give them, so, too, do employees respond poorly with a lot of changes. Some companies re-engineer their structure and processes so frequently there’s no way for the employees to commit to the change. They get shell shocked from the bombardment of changes. Consequently, they just sit back and wait for the next realignment. Why get excited about something if you know it will eventually change again? Too much change too frequently kills commitment.
“The same goes for frequent changes in management personnel. I once did some consulting work with a company that had six presidents in four years. Each time a new president joined the firm the president had absolutely no credibility with the employees. The new presidents might as well have been talking to the wall when he shared his vision of where he wanted to take the company. Based on the history of turnover in the top spot, the employees just looked at their watches and wondered how long it would be before another new president arrived with yet another new vision.”
I wanted Paul to understand that many attempts at organizational change fail because management doesn’t leave the change in place long enough to make it work. A change must be kept in place long enough for people to get comfortable and competent with the change. Companies that implement program after program to improve quality, customer service, teamwork, production, or other deficiencies, seldom achieve a level of true employee commitment because the change never becomes firmly rooted. When employees make comments such as “been there, done that” or “here we go again,” it is an indication that employees are responding CLOSED to the too-frequent changes in the organization. One of the key components of gaining employee commitment to change is this: Find the right change, plan it well, implement it well, and leave it in place long enough to work.
“That makes a lot of sense,” Paul agreed. “I certainly can see mistakes I’ve made in my own organization.”
“Then you’ll probably really enjoy my favorite point about why people resist change. I’ve saved it for last on purpose,” I said, smiling.
I told Paul a great deal can be learned from the laws of physics about motivating people. Newton apparently knew the difficulties of managing people because his First Law of Motion describes quite well why some employees respond CLOSED to change.
Newton’s First Law of Motion has three primary premises. I’ve changed the words slightly so they apply to the change process. Here’s Newton’s First Law of Motion:
Premise number one: An employee at rest tends to stay at rest.
Premise two: An employee in motion tends to follow his natural trajectory at the same speed and in the same direction until he is stopped or influenced by an outside force.
Premise three: An employee in a state of motion tends to resist acceleration.
“This describes the CLOSED area on the Ladder in a nutshell,” I declared. “Premise number one: Non-committed employees tend to stay not committed. Premise number two: Employees going down a certain path tend to stay on that path at the same speed and in the same direction until the manager does something about it. And finally, premise number three: Employees tend to resist management attempts to accelerate them down a different path.”
“You’re talking about my employees!” Paul exclaimed. “They want to stay at rest and they definitely resist acceleration.”
“That’s why management has to provide the accelerant,” I suggested. “The way to light a fire within employees, propelling them toward COMMITMENT, is to get them to step up to the next rung on the Ladder. To do that, managers need to OPEN up to their employees and get their employees to OPEN up to them.”
5
Getting People to be OPEN
Our conversation was briefly interrupted when the flight attendant brought our drinks – white wine for Paul and water, no ice, for me. She generously gave each of us two small packages of pretzels. It was the usual gourmet cuisine provided on airplanes these days. For a few hundred dollars more I could have flown first class and received complimentary bags of mixed nuts instead. Tempting, but then I wouldn’t have met Paul and had such a stimulating discussion. I was enjoying our conversation and was glad he had awakened me from my usual flight-home stupor.
“Okay,” I continued when the flight attendant moved her cart to the next row. “Before I tell you about the OPEN area on the Ladder of Commitment, you need to understand the factors that determine whether people will open up to one another. I’ll use the two of us as the example.
“We just met for the first time when we sat down on this plane tonight. We could have sat silently in our respective seats and never said a word to each other. Yet you opened up to me. What caused you to be open?”
“I don’t know. I pretty much will talk to anyone,” Paul offered. “It’s part of my personality. Maybe it’s the salesman in me. I’m an extrovert.”
“Yes, extroverts tend to be more open than introverts,” I agreed, “but there’s a difference between talking to someone and being OPEN with someone. Being open, really open, means you’re willing to share what you generally might hold close to your vest. Being open means you readily express your inner-most thoughts, motivations, and feelings. You freely share your ideas and opinions. True openness is a process of give and take involving both personal disclosure – the sharing of your thoughts and ideas – and the solicitation of feedback from others regarding those thoughts and ideas.
“So, Paul, based on that limited description of OPEN, do you feel like you are an open person?” I inquired.
“I’m not that open,” he conceded. “I certainly don’t go around sharing my innermost thoughts with just anyone. In fact, based on your description of OPEN, I really haven’t been open with you yet. We’ve just been talking.”
“That’s right. Talking is a first step toward OPEN, but it’s only a step,” I explained. “There’s a big difference between mere talking versus a truly open and frank discussion.
“So what would it take for you to feel you could be totally candid and open with me? What would determine whether you would OPEN up to me?”
“I’d