The Change Mindset

Immigrants

“That dust was everywhere. It got in your eyes, up your nose so you couldn’t draw a breath. So you breathed through your mouth and the grit was always on your teeth and crunched with everything you ate. The quarry slowed and there were no jobs, and then – America, the land of golden sidewalks beckoned.”

My friend Stella, retold her father’s tale of how he came to leave Carrara, Italy, origin of the famous marble and move to Boston. I’ve heard versions of this story several times, from Indians, Mexicans, and Brazilians. An Englishman once told me,

“Americans just seemed so carefree, not at all stuffy like everyone I knew at home. I came on holiday and resolved to come back to stay.”

My Pittsburgh haircutter Mico told succinctly how his family emigrated from Calabria.

“They had the dream and the dream made what they had seem like nothing.”

Immigrants may be the best example of people choosing life altering change. They reject where they live and move to an uncertain promise of opportunity. These are the three elements of a change mindset:

  • Rejection of the status quo (case for change)
  • Promise of the future (Vision)
  • Choice (people may reject “your” change if they feel it’s imposed upon them, but if they choose, then it’s “their” change).

Of course, you have to act. You have to sell what you own, get visas, buy tickets, get on the boat. No change happens until you do something, but action without the right mindset is unlikely to succeed.

Those who’ beat addiction through the AA 12-step process know  the importance of steps 1-3:

  1. “Admit you are powerless over alcohol”(acknowledge “rock bottom” reject status quo)
  2. Believe a higher Power can restore us to sobriety (a powerful vision)
  3. Decide to turn our will and our lives (buy the ticket – commit to change)

The remaining steps are all about actions, but the mindset is critical.

The Formula

Change equals dissatifaction with staus quo time vision of the future times first steps greater than resistance to change.This formula for change is usually credited to Richard Beckhard who published it in 1977 in Organizational Transitions. The formula was developed by David Gleicher while at consulting firm Arthur D. Little.

Dissatisfaction (rejection of the status quo) the push of change, times the pull of change (vision), times first steps must exceed resistance to change. In the original it was the cost of change, In 1980 Catherine Dannemiller changed cost to resistance and in 2014 Steve Cady added an S for supporting capability to sustain the change.

What I like about the formula is that it lays out the mindset (push and pull) and actions necessary to overcome the inertia of status quo. Also the formula is not additive, but multiplicative demonstrating the exponential difficulty of change.

There is both the dissatisfaction (rejection of the status quo)  and the vision (future  promise). The  dissatisfaction if often called the “compelling case for change – the why and why now, and what we can’t stay the same. I described this as the “burning platform” till I worked in the upstream oil and gas industry where that term is too painful.

I have seen leaders in business and politics lean into the threat of not changing -the ‘road to ruin,” end of life as we know it pitch. Danger can scare us into action, but over time constant threat gets normalized, doom and gloom depresses people, fear freezes people and action is forgotten.

Vision led change is always better and more lasting than threat-driven The grit of marble dust might wear your teeth and spirit down but without the “golden sidewalk” you don’t get on the ship. Wallowing in rock bottom does nothing without the pull of a sober lifestyle.

Vision statements are often emotion laden and sensory rich.

“The land of milk and honey”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident. . .all men are created equal. . .life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . We the People.”

“I have a dream.”

Dissatisfaction pushes; vision pulls you. Dissatisfaction, rejecting the current state, is reality-based problem definition. Vision is opportunity and solution finding.

A vision isn’t a daydream. “Pie in the sky by and by” doesn’t cut it for long. There must be a plan and milestones, and mid-journey measures to show your change is proceeding as planned.

What happens when you know you can’t go on the way things are, you must change, but what you are changing to is unclear? How can you “leap empty-handed into the void?”  Big change is often like this. We think we know the opportunity, but, if we are clear-eyed, we also see the risk. The phrase ‘jumping from the frying pan into the fire” is a cliché because it happens frequently.

Entering the “unknown unknown” arena, where “we don’t know what we don’t know” relies on values:

  • Do what is right –“Clean air and water” “Remove shortcomings. . .make amends,” “Taking care of customers,” “People matter and results count.”
  • Resilience – “we’ll get through this,” “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” one day at a time.”
  • Support –“ What if the sky should fall? As long as we’re together, it really doesn’t matter at all.”

The push from dissatisfaction, rejection of status quo, the pull of vision and the opportunity that opens to values, must overcome what Beckhard and Gleicher called resistance to change.

Resistance may be to imposed change that people haven’t chosen. Resistance may be fear of loss in the unknown. Resistance may be plain old inertia. Remember Newton’s First Law of motion “A body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.”
That’s why the formula included first steps, reducing friction, ignoring gravity, kicking yourself in the butt to do something – Action  focus -Try-it-fix it-try-it-again

Change mind-set first, bolstered by values, followed by action, is the only path. And if you find you’ve jumped from the frying pan into the fire?

 

Get out of the fire. Stop the bleeding. Get everyone to a safe position. Spread honey on your wounds. Refocus, Persist and Persevere.

Please join the conversation by leaving a comment below.

If you enjoyed my writing, please click the button below to subscribe to receive 1-2 posts per week, no ads, no affiliate links and I will never sell, trade or otherwise distribute your information. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking unsubscribe on the email.

A Friday Some Years Ago:

9:00. Phone rings.

“Hello? Oh, Hi Ken…”

12:00 noon. Phone rings.

“Hi Ken, what’s up?”

4:45 p.m. Phone rings.

“Hi Ken… Say Ken, Are you checking on me?”

“Well, actually, yeah. When I work from home I only get about two hours of work done all day. What with the kids and the dog, trying to work from the kitchen counter, and the TV, and computer games. It’s very distracting. We pay you quite a lot and I was just trying to see if you are actually working.”

“OK, Ken, I get it. But I’m in my office on the second floor of my house. It has a desk, phone, files and computer. There’s no TV. I have no games on my computer. My kids are grown and don’t live with me. The dog is old and goes out before work and after. Besides Ken, I only charge you when I’m actually working. We can review the training I wrote today if you’d like.”

“Well, I’m headed home; can you email it?”

“Sure.”

My client was new to the job and he had inherited a consulting team. To him it was easy to see us working when we were on site, but given his personal experience working from home, he couldn’t imagine us working productively on Friday, when we weren’t on site.

In fact, for certain kinds of head-down individual work, I got a great deal more done on Fridays than I did during the week, when I had to attend meetings with clients and build commitment to change. However, I understood that many managers in offices shared Ken’s experience and the concerns that arose from it.

Then Came Covid

Durin the coronavirus pandemic, workers in factories, healthcare, first responders, retail, and food service risked their lives and office workers learned to be productive “working from home.” Office productivity didn’t suffer as expected and office workers liked the flexibility, the lack of wasted commuting time, and not wearing pants on Zoom calls.

I retired in 2018, so this really didn’t affect me directly. I heard about it from my kids. One time consulting colleagues called to ask how I worked as an independent consultant. People asked about my home office and what the IRS required to deduct the set-up of a home office, (dedicated space, documented use, and expense receipts). I started to see jobs advertised as “remote,” or “hybrid.”

Some people figured out they could work from anywhere and you saw magazine articles of people working from the deck of their beach house. I was always jealous of that because I didn’t have a beach house.

Some people complained about the isolation of Covid-time. As the pandemic died down, some people reminisced about standing on balconies of city apartments banging pots in support of first responders and healthcare workers. Covid was something that affected us all, a unifier after a time of division.

Then Covid was (finally) over

Well, not really over. Covid is still around. We’re just done with it, over it; Covid is so four years ago. For the last four years, there has been a discussion building.

“OK everybody, it’s time to return to work.”

That one pissed off all those workers in factories, healthcare, first responders, retail, and food service who risked their lives.

“We never stopped working.”

So R-T-W became R-T-O, “return to office.”

Some were enthusiastic; some were less so. Sure, there would be less isolation, but more colds and flu (and Covid whispered the risk averse). And then there is wasted commute time. And then there is the flexibility of working when I want. And then there is the fact that I don’t have to stay late because Mary bent my ear about her mom, and Ted just had to relive the highlights of the big game, etc.

“OK, well, what about two days per week?”

“Maybe.”

“Three?”

“I don’t know.”

It’s been a long four years.

This conversation has been slowly accelerating. I must admit that, Boomer dinosaur that I am, I wasn’t particularly won over by the Gen X, Y, Z, Alpha whines about commuting costs and cleaning bills for the pants they would now have to wear. I also thought that some workers were being clearly unreasonable in their demands.

My nephew runs a retail food business and told me about job applicants who asked if they could “do the retail floor job remotely.” Some jobs require face time.

Culture is built by being together. Teams function best if they actually know each other. I began to hypothesize that introverts would want to work at home but extraverts would want to return to the office. It turns out there is no evidence of that.

I have had more and more conversations recently with office workers, people I respect for their intelligence and projected competence, who say, “If they insist on 5-days-in-office, I will leave.” Or “OK, I’ll come in for 9:00 and leave at 5:00, but there is no working till 7:00 and no calls on nights and weekends.”

There have been some famous CEOs who have gone public “R-T-O or else!” At a recent cookout, huddling under a canopy during an inconvenient downpour, I was engaged in conversation with the manager of administration for the board of directors at a money center bank.

“My CEO is friends with another CEO who has drawn a very public line in the sand, but my colleagues, my boss and three quarters of my staff will walk if he enforces the RTO mandate. Most of the board are off site and 90% of my work is email and phone. I have to be here for board meetings and two or three days a week is reasonable. Five is a hard “No!”

I began to think that managers, even CEOs, who insisted on a 5-day RTO mandate, might be driven by their own convenience  ̶  “I want to turn around an give someone a job directly. I don’t want to find out they’re ‘shirking from home’ and have to call them.”

Then, in today’s New York Times, I came upon an article by Adam Grant, et al, at the Wharton Business School, that quotes research, that demonstrates that:

“ One: Return-to-office mandates don’t increase profits by weeding out people who lack commitment. They motivate the most talented people to jump ship. Two: As long as people are together for half the week, remote work isn’t isolating. And three: Hybrid work isn’t bad for performance, innovation or connection. “

Grant et al go on to describe how adamant RTO mandates are most often pushed by narcissistic managers that require constant attention, as demonstrated by the size of their pay packages, offices, and their photos in the annual reports.

So where does that leave RTO?

It depends. There are clearly some jobs that require presence, just like first responders, and retail workers, if your job has a face to the public, well, you gotta face the public. If your job has more individual than team work, you might have more of an argument for remote or hybrid work.

If you are a manager, who just can’t get over the fact that, “Hey, I got up every day and went into the office. I sucked up to my manager and now its my turn,” then maybe look in a mirror. Get over yourself, and see how you can lead change three days a week or on Zoom without any pants.

You may also like. . .

Sacrifice

Sacrifice

My Memorial Day verse was not published the first time I tried, seems I’m cursed by technology’s worst. Here’s hoping this remembrance burst makes it now.

read more

Please contribute your thoughts in a comment. The author will be notified, but may not respond to every comment. The site reserves the right to delete comments it deems off topic, offensive, or spam.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *