Author: ken

The Need to Change – and the Need to Stay the Same

More and more businesses have come to accept that continual change is the name of the game they must play.  But resistance to change is the nemesis that dogs them every step of the way.

Whether the company is a Fortune 100 colossus or a modest not-for-profit, a family business or a professional organization, the problem is that people fear change, resist it, fight it and often end up sabotaging what they might even consciously agree are a good means to move things forward.

Mitchell Lee Marks, a professor of management at San Francisco State College of Business, gave some good advice on the problem in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal.  He noted that it’s important to work at it on two fronts:  weaken the support that employees give to the old ways of working by demonstrating their failures, and, also, provide a clearly detailed account of the new plans that will replace them.  But, throughout, he stresses that empathy is required on the part of bosses in communicating their ideas.

“Employees are more likely to hang on to the fear, uncertainty, resentment and other emotions that big changes bring if it seems to them that management has no clue about how they feel.”  (See, “In With the New.”)

Yes, but I would add that there are also unconscious resistances to change that employees themselves cannot easily articulate.  Leaders can demonstrate real curiosity about understanding the whole picture employees face in adapting to change, the resistances they don’t even know they have.  Employees may not want to have the doubts and worries they do, or they might just feel vaguely uneasy about what is being proposed; they may fear expressing their resentment; perhaps they are not aware of feeing threatened by change – before it happens.  It doesn’t matter:  they have those feelings and they will be enacted, even when they cannot be stated clearly.

So, the dilemma for the leader trying to plan for change is to bring those feelings and thoughts out into the open where they can be addressed.

But it is also important to confront the resistances when they occur.  Meetings that are missed, deadlines that pass, messages not delivered, agreements forgotten – these are all signs of unconscious resistance.  Often they will be explained away and dismissed, especially by a leader who would prefer to believe that everything is on track.  But the astute leader takes them for what they are:  covert opposition.

It is extremely important to respond to those events when they occur.  Being punitive or forcing employees to admit their unconscious motives is generally not helpful.  But a response that acknowledges the impact of such events on the changes being planned can make a big difference.

What we don’t know we know is how such little incidents presage larger failures.

Taking “Full Responsibility” – What Does It Actually Mean?

To say you “misspoke” is simply to state a fact.  To be sure, it is better than a denial or an attempt at a cover up.  But, when Richard Blumenthal, the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, added that he took “full responsibility” for misrepresenting his military service, what did he actually add to his admission?

By itself, “misspoke” might have seemed glib, the verbal equivalent of a typo.  Taking “responsibility” gives an impression of gravity – “full responsibility,” even more so.  But what does it amount to?  No one else was involved?  He was sober?  He was aware it wasn’t true?

As a psychologist I am constantly engaged in weighing the meaning and implications of what people say.  This is particularly important in assessing feeling of guilt.  I want to know how likely the person is to repeat the offense, how deeply they feel its wrongness.  Are they mindful of the hurt it did to others?  Are they truly remorseful?

None of that comes across in Blumenthal’s statement.  On the contrary it is reminiscent of the kinds of statements that bankers have been making recently about the credit crisis. Chuck Prince, for example, former chairman and CEO of Citigroup, testified before Congress that he was  “sorry that the financial crisis has had such a devastating impact on our country.”  All the words suggestive of an apology are there, but he is not saying he’s sorry for anything he actually did.  Blumenthal obviously regrets “misspeaking,” but has he questioned why he did it or tried to understand what was wrong about it?

Frankly, it looks like, once caught, he wants us all to accept his admission of guilt and then drop the matter.  Accepting “full responsibility” is a way of suggesting that the case can now be closed – and he can move on to rebuilding his career.

The Loss of the American Dream

Those who have jobs in America may be glad they’re employed – but they’re not happy.

According to a report of The Conference Board:  “Twenty years ago, some 60 percent of [the baby boomer] generation was satisfied with their jobs. Today, that figure is roughly 46 percent.”  But that’s not all: “the youngest cohort of employees (those currently under age 25) expresses the highest level of dissatisfaction ever recorded by the survey for that age group.”  (See, “U.S. Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in Two Decades.”)

There is no single reason for that dissatisfaction, according to the report:  “The drop in job satisfaction between 1987 and 2009 covers all categories in the survey, from interest in work (down 18.9 percentage points) to job security (down 17.5 percentage points).”

This is one of those big facts about life in America that we know without knowing.  The optimism that supported self-discipline and ambition has eroded.  The promise of opportunity is not what it was.  But what accounts for this steady decline?

I suspect that we have all come to understand that America has gradually become a stratified society of classes with different interests and increasingly rigid boundaries.  The rich are not only richer but they have foreclosed opportunities for others.  The gap in corporate salaries between top executives and entry-level workers is far greater than it ever was.  The political class increasingly depends on personal wealth, family connections, and special interests.  Immigrants are no longer welcome.  And the poor are getting poorer – even as they gain access of unemployment insurance and health care.

And, then, workers are pressured to become more productive while accepting lower job security and fewer work place amenities and benefits.  The pressures of investment capitalism – in which the profits of our system are siphoned off to stockholders – allow for only restricted distribution to those who work.  Paying those who produce value is a drag on profits, while what is not skimmed off by management to support their own demands and growing life-style expectations is distributed to investors who are focused more and more on increasing the value of their investments through mergers and acquisitions.

I doubt that most workers grasp the nature of the system in which they are working.  But it is unlikely that they fail to grasp that it no longer supports their dreams and aspirations.  America is no longer the land of opportunity it was for those who started out at the bottom of the ladder.

So it is becoming more and more difficult to tolerate the frustrations and indignities of the workplace, and that is reflected in surveys of job satisfaction.  In essence, the problem is that there is actually less and less satisfaction in work.  That can’t be disguised.

“Yes Men”

Typically we worry that financial advisors are getting us into investments from which they stand to profit.  And if they are paid on commission, they benefit no matter what they suggest or we decide.  But a new study suggests that they are biased in our favor – not necessarily to our advantage.

The study reported in Fortune showed that actors playing the part of investors seeking advice from financial planners, “walked out with advice that mimicked the biases in their original portfolio.”  Conservative investors, for example, comfortable with sitting on their cash, “were more likely to be told to take the cautious step of buying index funds.”

“The most telling result came from the actors loaded with company stock.  Just 40% of the planners told them to sell the stock and diversify their portfolio, even though the move would both be in the client’s best interest . . . and generate commissions for the planner.” (See, “The Yes-Man Problem.”)

Why?  The co-author of the study, Sendhil Mullainathan, a Harvard professor and recipient of a MacArthur “genius” grant, thought the answer was the overriding “need to get business in the door and have that client come back year after year.”  As a result, the planners avoided “the difficult conversations.”

No doubt that’s true.  Moreover, it’s also true that investors are likely to reject advice that’s different from what they themselves think.  As the article in Fortune went on to say, an earlier survey found that two-thirds of the people interested in meeting with a financial planner were likely to implement the advice “only if it conformed to their own ideas.”

Once again we see the inherent conservatism of the mind.  We don’t easily change our ideas, and we like people who agree with us – even when we know we might benefit from a new opinion.

This is particularly true when we are anxious.  Looking for a new restaurant or a different recipe, we are more likely to consider the advice we get.  But money makes most of us worried and tense.  We are keenly aware of the risk, fearful of making a mistake.  And since financial advisors know that too, a reliable way for them to build a relationship is to offer their clients a sense of security and comfort.

So it is up to us to get out of our comfort zones and ask for what we need, not what we want.  What we don’t know we know about ourselves is how hard it is to hear a different truth, even when it is in our own interest.

But What About the Truth?

Last week, Sean Hannity invited his audience to vote if they thought the Times Square bomber acted alone or with the Taliban or with Al Qaeda.  What an interesting way to decide.

No doubt, Hannity clearly understood that such a “vote” could not actually decide the truth.  The public verdict could not send anyone to jail. On the other hand, calling it a “vote” suggests a significant step beyond opinion.  A verdict was to be reached.

Elections confer legitimacy to opinion.   On American Idol, someone wins and someone loses.  In a jury trial, the defendant ends up being sentenced.  Something has been decided, agreed upon, set in place.  So what is going on here?

Is it just a kind of mob flattery?  The audience is asked to believe in its own wisdom or insight, and, even though it is unlikely that many voters in the audience could make a clear cut distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that would not prevent them from being sure which was worse.  And, in fact, the winner announced at the program’s end was Al Qaeda.  (The Attorney General last week said it was probably the Taliban.)

But also, as in vigilante justice, a vote implies that the usual authorities are not to be trusted.  Either they don’t care enough, allowing themselves to be distracted by a sentimental attachment to “ due process” or “civil liberties,” or they are corrupt.  What ever you might think about the crowd, at least they had nothing to gain from expressing their honest opinion.

So this is yet another sign of our growing distrust of government.  Hannity is implying that the audience knows better than the FBI, or is more trustworthy than those who are trained to investigate crime or guard national security.

The distinction between a straw poll and a “vote” may not seem so great on the surface. But what we don’t know we know about the difference says a lot about our endangered democracy.