Getting “Buy-in” to something “New”
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he's also written monthly columns for Municipal World and Computing Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
If you’re a ‘doer’ of any sort, whether you’re a meeting planner, organizer, manager, secretary or a just one of those people that makes the world go round - then from time to time you’re going to stumble across a method or process that you just know will benefit others if only they’ll adopt it. You’ll then discover, sometimes much to your surprise, that your enthusiasm for your new found solution isn’t shared by those around you.
Welcome to the very common problem of implementing a Change.
If you also classify yourself as a problem solver then you’re well aware that we repeat certain problem solving solutions time and time again. We don’t set out to do this consciously, but never-the-less these solution patterns repeat. A good problem solver understands the need to identify, categorize and generalize these solution patterns and use them consciously. There is a flip side to this, there are also patterns of failure, ‘solutions’ we try time and time again that don’t lead us towards our goal. In a sense, that’s why we attempt to categorize the solutions that work, because this knowledge then helps us avoid the ‘solutions’ which don’t work. Good problem solving practices attempts to steer us towards the successful problem solving techniques by steering us away from the less effective approaches.
The “Buy-in” strategy in traditional Change Management is a perfect example of a commonly used unsuccessful approach to a common management problem. Yes, I’m well aware of the fact that questioning the value of a commonly held belief is heretical, but it is an accurate assessment of the efficacy of “buy-in”.
Typically, when we find a good, new solution we get enthusiastic, sometimes wildly enthusiastic about it. Our immediate strategy is to try and convince others that this solution is the answer to all our problems. We want them to ‘buy-into’ the new idea, after all, we know it works. Our approach is to concentrate on the benefits of this solution. Our goal? To get our audience or organization to adopt the new idea.
And then we’re surprised when they respond with, “Why?”
It doesn’t matter what new idea we’re trying to implement or in what organizational context we’re operating, we will always encounter this well meaning “Why?” We then incorrectly, in my opinion, label it as ‘resistance to change’. We also mislabel this phenomenon as being ‘negative’ and perhaps even as an ‘obstacle to progress’.
The problem we’ve created is this: We’re attempting to sell a solution, before agree on the problem.
Here’s an experiment, we’ll make it incredibly simple. Walk into the office next to yours and say to the person, “Stand up.” (or “Stand up!” if you want to increase the intensity of the experiment.) What is their response? They will either ask “Why?”, at the very least they’ll think it.
What you just conducted was the simplest of change experiments. The “Why?” you received isn’t trivial, it needs to be answered in some fashion if you’re to get the victim subject to stand.
If you want a more robust experiment, one performed by a PhD, one with ‘convincing’ statistics, then consider the test performed by Dr. Robert Cialdini (Described in his book, “Influence: Science and Practice” ISBN 0-321-18895-0)
This
experiment was conducted at a busy photocopier. The researcher stepped to the
front of the queue and asked: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox
machine?” The result was that 60% of the time she was allowed to make her copies.
On the next trial she asked instead: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the
Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?” This increased her success rate (immediately
making copies) to 94%.
To test if “…because I’m in a rush” was the deciding factor for the change, they changed
the opening line to: “Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because
I have to make some copies?”
Her success rate remained close to 94% at 93%. The initial request with no reason given
is 60%, adding even the
smallest of reasons, ‘because’ to the unspoken ‘Why?’ increases
that success rate to 93%.
So… if you’re trying to implement a new idea, what is your answer to the reasonable question ‘Why?’ going to be? That this “idea” is better than what we’re currently doing isn’t enough. That’s basically what we’re saying when we’re enthusiastic and merely sing the praises of a new solution.
What people need to hear is a description of the problem that the new idea is supposed to solve. You cannot sell anyone the benefits of anything until they agree that the benefits are necessary.
So? What problems does your new idea solve? What are the failings of your existing process? Can you point to specific failings which everyone agrees need addressing? Can you measure what it costs in lost opportunity costs? Can you then
estimate the opportunities offered by the new idea? If that’s too difficult, or circumspect, is it possible to identify an existing outstanding problem which has defied solution at great cost to the organization? Can the cost of not solving it justify a different approach? Perhaps
trying out your idea in some limited manner?
© 2007, Peter de Jager. Peter is a speaker/consultant/writer on Change related issues. If you’ve enjoyed his writing in The Planner, you can now read his daily blog
entitled: Technobility
For
reprint permissions click here.
I'd appreciate reading your comments
regarding this article... please take the time to respond.
Resources: