Biggest Obstacle to Change—Underestimation

This week I was asked what's the biggest mistake people make when trying to change themselves or their organizations. The answer is simple—the most fundamental, universal error is underestimation.

Scientists call underestimating difficult things an optimism bias, and it's well researched and documented. There's something about the human psyche that makes each of us overestimate the good and underestimate the bad in our lives. Study after study shows how we overestimate our income, ability, health, and chances for good news. on the other hand we underestimate expenses such as weekly budgets, how long it will take to pay off our credit cards and the amounts needed to save for future events, as well as the likelihood of bad events happening to us such as heart attack, car trouble, or flooding.

How does this affect change? In more ways than you'd think (stop underestimating). Here are some underestimations I see regularly:

Underestimating Time

We want change to happen now, and if not, then soon! Rookies believe that if you declare a change it has happened instantly, but even those with experience believe change can be influenced in weeks or months. Change experts such as Kotter know it takes years for change to truly bear fruit. Two to three years sounds too long, especially in this climate of quarterly and yearly reports. Managers don't have years. But if you want to change yourself or your organization you have to be in it for the long-haul. There are quick ideas, but no quick changes. Estimate the time you think it will take for the change to succeed and then double it or triple it. Be prepared to support it for the entire duration if you want to see results. Also, don't fall into the trap of calling it a day as soon as the new state surpasses the old—you may miss out on stacks of hidden upside.

Underestimating Difficulty and Complexity

Individuals are affected in their daily lives by millions of interpersonal and inter-societal forces as well as their own baggage and history. Likewise, organizations are built over time by collections of such people amidst countless invisible forces (such as market, political and social forces). Yet when we write down a change such as to stop smoking or install a new product tracking system, we simplify the situation down from Einstein to Second Grade. "We'll put in the new system, people will have to change, there may be some disruption." In order to begin to move forward we have to simplify the situation, which when compounded with optimism bias means we always simplify in the wrong direction—we round towards easiness every time. This is further exacerbated by the fact that those masterminding the change are mostly optimistic and enthusiastic about it (or they wouldn't be involved). People are positive at the beginning and negative in the middle—this needs to be reversed to make your change succeed. But most importantly, you need to recognize the vast interconnectedness of ecosystems you are changing and admit that there is going to be a lot you won't understand until you get there: releasing Cane Toads in Australia sounded like a great idea at the time too.

Underestimating Effort

Sure, it's going to take some work, but how much? Well, if we've already underestimated the time and complexity of the task (which are givens), then we also underestimate the effort required on all involved. In modern business and in our personal lives we are big fans of making smaller projects out of the big ones, that's how jobs get done. We love initiatives—especially at the start—and we are always looking for easy solutions to long-term problems. Let's take weight loss as an example. There are two keys to losing flab: eat healthier (not less, but “better”) and be more active (including exercise). Yet this simple solution seems not to be enough for many people because it's too painful—it disrupts lifestyles and the effort required often exceeds the downside of being large. Enter the millions of different diet and exercise programs. Which one works best? Whichever you are prepared to stick to! There is no magic wand (sorry). If in any other change you are looking for the masterfully designed project to save you time and effort, you are waiting for a miracle. Don't get me wrong, a solid, realistic and defined plan is essential, but you have to stick to it and you have to put in a lot of effort. You have to get past the initial phase of "sounds great" and roll up your sleeves and go and do. The next initiative or solution is never as good as completing the one you’re halfway through.

Underestimating Cost

So, you've underestimated time, complexity and effort. Should it really surprise you that you grossly underestimated cost? This is more of a by-product of other factors, but probably the most important one. Remember to underpromise and overdeliver, underestimate benefits and overestimate costs.

Underestimating Self Involvement

When I consult with teams who have selected some change to push through they almost always design a project to change other people. We all see the issues in others and in other areas of our organizations, but seldomly do we see problems with ourselves. So when we have a chance to change something, we point to the other guys and shout "finally! Fix them!" Firstly, this is madness, as we can only really ever change ourselves. But also importantly, management can't drive through a change if they are not prepared to exhibit the change more than anyone else—the rest of the organization will be watching closely to see if this is for real, and also what they can get away with. Change must start with you, whether you are the CEO changing an organization or a man trying to improve his marriage. It may not sound right, but it is the ONLY way your change can succeed in the long term.

Underestimating Pain and Disruption

We tend to underestimate the amount of disruption and fallout the change will cause. We know it will get worse before it gets better, but we overestimate our ability to manage through that and are not prepared for just how messy things will get. This is vital to understand as the pain motivating us to change must be greater than the pain of actually changing. If you underestimate the disruption you may find the pain halfway through the change is worse than you remember the initial motivation was in the first place. Then you will stop. Going back to the diet example, you are pained by the way people look at you and treat you, so you diet. A couple of weeks in you plateau and no longer see the weight coming off, and more than ever you are craving the old comfort foods that got you in the mess in the first place. Suddenly the pain outweighs the benefits and you stop the change, slipping back seamlessly into your old lifestyle—until the pain of being overweight again begins to play on you. Some people have to get to a state where they are in fear they won't live to see their grandchildren before they can persevere to make the entire change stick. Rather than resorting to this level of motivation in your change ask yourself the following two questions: What will get you through the pain when it comes, and what can you put in place before you start to remind you of the old pain and the need to persevere? (In this scenario, WieghtWatchers do a good job of both of these by utilising their support network.)

Conclusion

Change takes longer, is more complex, expensive and painful, and takes more personal involvement and effort than you would ever plan for. But, if you can learn to be wise in this regard you can mitigate for each of these—and trite as it sounds, never giving up is the common treatment for all (well, except for cost!).

How Positive Thinking Really Works

When it comes to positive thinking as a route to becoming something we've all heard it in one way or another.

• Mahatma Gandhi said “a man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes.”
• Steven Covey, in "Seven Habits", talks about the upward spiral of being, changing, and seeing; how perception and being are intrinsically linked.
• David Taylor, the author of "The Naked Leader" explains "the most powerful way to make any change in our life is to act as if that change has already been made."
• German psychiatrist Johannes Schultz used this principle, called Autogenic Conditioning, to help German Olympians in the 40s and 50s visualise victoryand then achieve it, with remarkable success.
• NLP has a process based on this principle called Guided Visualization which takes people to their ideal state, helps them work out how they got there, and brings them back to the present with a way to achieve their goals.
• Conventional wisdom urges all of us to "do our bosses job" which we will then receive by naturally growing into the role.

And the list goes on. Undoubtedly there is a natural principle at work in the universe that people's vision of themselves causes them to act in certain ways which causes a reality to happen or vice-versa. Taken at its worst, this principle is bandied by pseudo-consultants and ex-car-salesman-turned-life-coaches as mere positive thinking where all of us can become supermodel millionaires just by wishing it so. As an intelligent and rational person, how do you realistically drive the fine line between delusion and pessimism?

A great way of seeing this principle at work is, strangely, popular reality shows. Programmes like the X Factor (in the UK) and American Idol (in the US) show the difference between wanting to be made into something and being something that can be made.

Plotting Ability and Self-Perception against each other we get four types of people. The blue band dictates Reality—where perception=ability. Quadrants 2 and 3, the Self-Saboteurs and the Delusional are off reality and will be forced back on (by fulfilment or a reality check) or will stay out of touch for ever and be branded as crazy by people who see the mismatch. Let's take a look at each quadrant in reverse order using clips from first-round X Factor auditions (which are live):

4. Superstars

These people are good and know it. They haven't just arrived at this state, but have followed a long path of improvement based on reaffirmation (from themselves and others) and lots of practice. They are already performing at the level they need to perform for success, but may need a break—in this case a record deal, but in your case the right contact, the right job or other opportunity. Clip 1 Clip 2 (links open new windows)

3. Self Saboteurs

Good, but don't believe it. They have real talent but for whatever reason lack the ability to capitalize. This may be due to external factors such as emotional abuse or criticism, or plain self doubt. Whatever the reason there is a strong psychological urge to validate oneself, or make people see you how you see yourself to prove yourself right. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sports coaches focus on moving people from this area when the tiniest doubt has huge effects. Also note that this is the only clip from a later stage of the competition as people sometimes need a little time to self-destruct. This contestant has amazing ability but just doesn't believe it, which breaks your heart. Clip 3

2. Delusional

Bad, but convinced they are good. Reality shows get a lot of traction from these, especially as generally only quadrants 4 and 2 self-select and audition (both sets believe they are good). This is where the issue of positive thinking becomes dangerous. Clip 4 and Clip 5 are good examples of people who believe they are much better than they really are. The real difference between them and the Superstars, other than talent, is the length of that belief; People who truly believe they are great singers sing everywhere all the time. People who are momentarily delusional convince themselves and hype themselves up for the moment. They haven't had the practice or the internal or external reaffirmation. They haven't tested it out, but think, "I could be wonderful at that" and convince themselves that positive thinking alone will carry them. They are lying to themselves and deep down they know it. On the other hand, I love this example Clip 6 which illustrates someone who only has middling to poor talent but has obviously gone the whole hog in positive thinking—in the long term and the short term—to become entertaining. He actually made it through this audition and two more cuts to the last 30 based on true (sustained) self belief which exceeded his skill. This demonstrated that that PMA (positive mental attitude), if truly believed and acted on consistently, can make up somewhat for present skill—but never completely. Either you will gain the skill, or you will need to move on.

1. Average Joes

Not particularly good and know it. In the context of a singing competition this is most of us. Generally this group do not try out for the X Factor. Still, some say "what the heck, I've got nothing to lose" and go for it anyway. This latter group, like the pair in this clip Clip 7 are hoping for a miracle. They want people to see intrinsic worth or to take pity and take them and turn them into something. In the worst case, people in this category are lazy and want to bypass the work and uncertainty of hoping, trying, seeing and becoming that the Superstars have already gone through on their own.

Correcting Back to Reality

There are two ways to correct back to reality: 1. Reality Check, where you align your vision of yourself with your present skills. 2. Fulfilment, where your present skills catch up with your vision of yourself (in both the short term and long term). Notice that Saboteurs need to reality check, while the Delusional need to fulfil. The hard part is that in reality the opposite tends to happen. People don't like it when others believe they are better than they are and as a group we all try to put people back into their boxes. This is primate dominance and we learn it as children and use it all our lives. Even more cruelly, we're not good at finding the Self-Saboteurs and helping them. They tend to hide their talents because they don't believe they are good enough. They receive no encouragement from those around them because their friends and family don't see any evidence of talent and may also hinder growth in a misguided attempt to protect. Sadly, some people in this category are surrounded by cruel or small-minded people who work consciously to keep them down for their own selfish reasons (which is generally how this group gets into this state of mind in the first place, especially in the under-privileged).

In the clamouring of the real world, 99% of forces pull people back to the black hole of Quadrant 1: Average, with everyone else.

Have Courage: Think, Act, Be

This is why positive thinking becomes a real principle that will elevate you to where you want to be, but only when treated as a verb, not a noun. To improve what you are you have to believe then act, then believe some more and act again; You can only truly believe in something that is real, then you have to have the courage to step out into the darkness to see if it is real or not. In a chicken-and-egg scenario of what comes first, achieving and believing, believing always precedes, (with achieving before believing happening rarely, as when you have the right family relations, or people who are willing to elevate you significantly above your ability).

And to answer the quacks, you don't have unlimited potential in every area, but all of us have more potential than we are able to fully realise in one lifetime, so in that sense, it may as well be limitless. The key is finding where your strengths are and courageously going after them. We can all be a Superstar, but not all of us can sing.

How to Influence Culture

In an ealier post I explained why organizational culture follows forces the same way a free market does. If this is true, how can we influence culture? The six characteristics of a free culture give us insights on where to start.

The First People in an Organization Set Precedents

It's important to know where the culture has grown from. Founders of businesses, by their very nature, are tenacious, visionary, and often larger-than-life. They, along with those they enlisted in the hard-fought early years, will have set a powerful atmosphere. This cultural legacy will be enduring because it formed around what made the business successful in the first place. Those hired will be in their bosses' image (either as a conscious or unconscious hiring principle) and the formal and informal systems and processes will grow around the culture, reinforcing and embedding it. Understanding those who founded the company will help you understand why things are done the way they are—especially the things that, for some unknown reason just can't be changed.

Some Individuals Have More Effect than Others

Because culture is driven by countless human transactions, based on an expectation of reward and punishment, those who are empowered to reward and punish have by far the largest effect. Managers who hold the carrot and the stick have a profound effect. If you are looking to measure the culture, look at how your managers behave and how they punish and reward. If you want to change culture, don't waste resources trying to sell everyone, drive it through the hierarchy. Specifically, sell the managers from the top down so they are bought in to what you are trying to achieve, engage them in the journey, and review often to make sure they really believe in the change and act accordingly.

Different Organizations Have Different Bounds Around What Effective Culture Is

All too often, culture definition projects are looking to find the ideal but end up with everything. When asked what the ideal culture should be, managers and employees will have different views (usually framed by their needs). "We should be more (fill in the blank)": innovative, challenging, team-oriented, customer-focused, family-friendly, diverse, inclusive, fast-paced, dependable, aligned, cost-driven, socially and/or environmentally responsible, ethical...the list goes on. The problem is, once one of these lovely words is on the table, it's almost impossible to get off, even if it contradicts what's already there. No one wants to be the one to say "I don't think ethics is important here." Before you make any rash pronouncements about what the new company culture might include, understand what it shouldn't be. Also note that your true culture (how you work) and the marketed culture (your company values and how you market yourselves inside and outside the company) may be different things. How many oil companies are really the green "energy" companies they proclaim to be? Somewhere in the organization there have to be people saying "carbon emissions are good for me and my family, level that rainforest and drill!" The true culture may be one where profits come first and everyone does their part in marketing by telling their friends and neighbours how responsible their firm is.

Organizational Processes, Systems and Other Bureaucracy Do Not Create Culture

Culture does not come from the organizational framework, but from the way people interact with each other. Processes and systems inform this, if not always in the way you want. You can legislate how you want people to behave, but it doesn't mean you will get what you are looking for. There is a balance. Past a point, the more you bureaucratize or force culture, the less it will work for you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. As HR departments have been explaining for years, you get the behaviours you reward, so make sure that your procedures and systems reinforce the kinds of actions you are looking for by rewarding them and punishing the opposite.

The Culture Will Vary Throughout The Organization

Think of a company as a country. America as a whole has cultural characteristics that clearly differentiate it from China. Yet within the same country, the South has a different culture to New England, and California to Arkansas. Culture can be changed as a whole, but also in regions. Why are you wasting money chivvying along the accountants, the cafeteria staff and HR to be more creative, when you should just be focusing on marketing and engineering.

The Culture is Dynamic, Always Changing

The culture will always be on the move, if slowly. The important takeaway here is that whatever you do to influence the system, it's not the only thing happening: there were other things trying to move the culture before you were on the scene, and there will be more after your efforts are done. Like stocks, cultural fluctuations can be large or small. We need to be smart and know that we are just one tugboat pushing on a supertanker in stormy waters. You can get it where you want it, but there will be moments when you're heading backwards. Writing down the definitive current culture can also be a pitfall: you measured the culture of what part of the organization and on what day?

Last Thoughts

Lastly, information is key. Just as in a free market where rapid dissemination of information allows for more efficient markets, rapid and constant dissemination of cultural information allows managers to make appropriate decisions from strategy, to hiring, to processes and day-to-day operations. Also, that information can't just have data, but must have emotional weight as well as logical. All too may influencers forget the rhetoric 101 of logos, ethos and pathos and rely just on logos.

Levers in a financial market include interest rates, money supply, government spending, and legislation. Levers that govern organizational culture use include reward structures, hiring policies, processes, systems, management, and communication. It would be foolhardy to rely only on one lever in either case.