Change: It Comes Down to This Question...

This article is the thirty-eighth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Four Questions and a Conversation brought out some good--and varied--comments about Change.

The single idea of the post was a simple one: Whenever announcing or suggesting something "new", it's a good idea to understand the basic questions that most people need to have answered before they can hop on board.

Yet those questions are just a fact-finding mission on the way to the unspoken one:

What's In It For Me?

If there are 200 or 20,000 employees, there will be 200 or 20,000 individual calculations being made in order to reconcile that question. But nothing of consequence will happen until a critical mass of people have decided that the "new thing" has personal benefits that outweigh the effort to make a change.

Whether it's a small change or a large one, each person involved is  doing the "What's In It For Me?" (WIFFM) calculation.

We've all listened to the "We need to get leaner/increase shareholder value/grow market share" speeches. Most people "get it" when the situation is legitimate and laid out honestly. Yet even the CEO who makes the announcement isn't doing it for shareholder value. The CEO is doing it because (s)he has personal needs to be met: competitiveness, executive lifestyle, reputation...or simply a sense of personal accomplishment. "Shareholder value" is someone else's reason for change.

Why does this matter?

Depending upon the size of the change, people need different amounts of time to do their WIIFM calculation. They also need to hear information more than once, along with the ability to ask questions and discuss implications without being labeled "resistant".

In fact, I've got an idea. Instead of laying on the "resistant" label, how about using "hesitant" instead? That's a word with less baggage and better describes what's really going on.

What do you think about that? Maybe we can get a movement going here.

Note: Special thanks to Bob Cenek for the "WIIFM" suggestion. Bob is back with the popular Cenek Report while in the midst of his own Change projects.

Comments

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

Planning for change in advance is important. Have a change methodology, engaging key stakeholders, etc. You've ideated on these points across the spectrum of this series.

Now you are focusing on the most overlooked step in facilitating change:

The Change Readiness Assessment!

Taking an extra few days, weeks, maybe even a whole month, to understand the WIIFM makes the opportunity for change exponentially more successful.

Best,
Joe

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Joe,

Thanks for tossing in the Readiness factor.

Taking time to assess readiness--formally or informally--really does make a difference.

What has your experience been with Readiness Assessment in the midst of real-life application? Are there times when urgency and seriousness simply outweigh the need to worry about readiness?

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

My experience shows it is relevant irrespective of the size of the project. On one end, a manager could do a Change Readiness Assessment (CRA) by chatting with a few people on their team. On the opposite end of the scale, implementing an ERP system across six divisions and 8,000 people would require the anonymous survey, focus groups, and one v. one interviews.

As you know, the important value in a CRA is to uncover those blind spots that could derail the change effort.

Oh, and then actually doing something about them before starting the project...

[Wally Bock]

There are questions that you need to answer. What's our current situation? What do we want it to be? How will we get there? Who's involved and affected? How will we pay for the trip? What would be fun to try?

[Luc Galoppin]

Hi Steve,

Once more I think we are on the same wavelength.

With regards to the big hairy 'resistance' which turns out to be a nice cosy and trustworthy pet, I recently made the same point:
http://www.reply-mc.com/2008/01/13/more-evidence-on-the-good-nature-of-resistance/

Resistance is not the problem but the fuel. Indifference is the real problem (which - I agree - is a different discussion).

As for the WIIFM matter, I have found the marketing insight of John Gourville extremely helpful: http://www.reply-mc.com/2007/01/28/whats-in-it-for-me/
Since Gourville's article in HBR appeared I have used it several times in order to let people determine THEMSELVES how they would label each of the changes that they are going through. By doing the mapping themselves, they communicate to me how patient I need to be with them for each change: smash hit, rough spot, etc. So to my opinion this Gourville matrix is a perfect tool for calculating, sharing and communicating the WIIFM.

Check it out!

Luc.

[Steve Roesler]

Hey, Wally:

Well, I was giving a heads-up regarding what's really going through people's minds after a decision has been made and a change announced.

As for the useful planning questions you've added: It makes the journey a bit more enjoyable when you're with a group where it's just fine to ask and answer the last one.