Mark Twain once said, "The only person who likes a change is a baby in a wet diaper" (Hersey et al, 2001, p. 376). From my experience, even babies sometimes don't want to change their diaper! Individuals are naturally prone to resist change. During times of organizational change this tendency to resist may be magnified even further if employees feel the organization has broken or will break their commitment to them as individuals.
In today's environment of constant upheaval caused by cost saving efforts, realignments, outsourcing, etc., a change effort will bring many questions into the minds of employees, including; whether their position will be eliminated; if they will have a cut in pay, bonus, benefits, pensions; if they will need to produce more or do with less resources; if they will be relocated; or if they will face a multitude of other negative consequences because of what the company is proposing. With apprehension about the change, rumors swell and the minds of employees are diverted because of trepidations concerning the upcoming change. As a result, energy and efforts are dampened or diverted elsewhere, and performance suffers.
At a corporate level it may be easy to chart on paper the projected improvements a change will have on performance, raising results from point A to point B, through a number of steps, to help the company arrive at the desired outcome. The increased performance outcomes of a change effort can be measured in financial and production outcomes, improved products or service, improved customer or employee satisfaction or other measures. However, growth toward the desired outcome is not likely to come in a smooth straight line upward due to the fact that employee performance is likely to drop as new changes are begun due to resistance, fear, confusion, distractions, lack of motivation, etc.
The consequences of a drop in performance during change can have negative consequences for individuals (less bonus, loss of pride, future impact on review ratings, spiral negativity which could worsen results further, etc), on the team leaders (not making targets, less bonus, lack of ability to maintain team motivation, etc), and for the larger organization (slower time in implementing change, not reaching target outcomes, etc). Perhaps for this reason there are statistics which show that success rates for change efforts in Fortune 1000 companies are less than 50% and even could be as low as 20% (Harvard Business Review, 1998, p. 140). Team leaders can apply a process to help lessen the dip in performance and shorten the time to implement the change and regain
performance, benefiting the organization, the manager and the individual employees. This process includes the following 8 steps:
1. Build an environment of trust with the employees in order to create an environment where employees are more open to ideas and more willing to discuss possibilities and problems associated with change.
2. Link the change effort to a common team value in order to help employees feel they can relate to the change effort at a personal level. This increases the desire and motivation to change.
3. Articulate and communicate a clear message about why the change effort is needed and will help the team. This links the facts and figures supporting the change to the team value. Communication should frequent throughout the effort.
4. Establish a vision with the employees regarding the possible advantages of making the change in order to help the team define for themselves where the change will take them.
5. Collaborate for solutions with team members so that employees have the opportunity to identify the driving and restraining forces in the change effort and identify action steps for implementing steps to implement the change and overcome the restraining forces.
6. Establish and celebrate wins along the way. The leader should actively orchestrate wins and celebrations so employees can see that the change effort is important and see that changes in behavior will lead to positive outcomes.
7. The leader must manage performance around the change. This includes coaching those who need support with the change, disciplining or removing those who continually resist the change or have decided to fight against it, rewarding positive changes, hiring employees who have the new capabilities needed in the change effort, etc...
8. Constantly monitor the process and the results to ensure that the change effort is on track.
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label decision making. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
What My '74 Pinto Teaches Us About Ethical Decision Making
Since my first car was a Ford Pinto, I have always been interested in the case study of the Ford Pinto. For those of you not old enough to remember, the Pinto had a slight defect in the design of the gas tank, causing it to explode when the car was involved in even small rear end collisions! The case provides an interesting study into approaches to ethical decision making.
There are three possible approaches to make when making ethical decisions; a consequentialist approach, a deontological approach and a psychological approach. In a consequentialist approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing attention on the consequences of their action (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 89). In the deontological approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing on what is right or wrong based on common values and rights of individuals and/or groups (p. 91). A decision maker basing their action on a psychological approach may vary their actions based on the level of their of cognitive moral development (p. 115).
In the Ford Pinto case, an individual who took a consequentialist approach could easily make the decision which Ford did and produce the car despite the possibility of having the gas tank explode on low speed rear-end collisions. Furthermore, they would likely agree with Ford that the car did not need to be recalled once it was on the market. A decision maker using the consequentialist approach would look at the consequences for the broadest number of individual and groups as possible and make their decision based on doing the least harm and the most amount of good to all. Since the data showed that there were no more accidents with the Pinto than with other vehicles and the company's stakeholders would greatly benefit from keeping the costs low and bringing the car to market as fast as possible; they easily could have decided that the most benefit would come from going ahead with the design since there would be many who would benefit and likely no more than what existing standards permitted would be harmed. This is what Ford did despite numerous explosions and deaths.
On the other hand, a decision maker using the deontological approach would easily have decided not to move ahead with production and/or to recall the car once it was on the market since this individual would base their decision on a set of moral values and/or the a code of individual rights. They would likely argue that the car should not be produced because it would be ethical wrong to knowingly hurt defenceless individuals or because a small group of people harmed or killed. Unless the rights of these individuals could be protected, the decision would be not to produce the car, or if it was already on the market, the decision would be to recall the car and make the necessary repairs.
The results of a decision of an individual following a psychological approach could vary depending on several influencers. An individual, for example, may have agreed to move forward with the sale of the Pinto and/or not to recall it from the market because they may have been highly influenced by others in the company. Because of this influence they may have feared punishment from management or they may have hoped that by supporting the majority opinion that they would have been rewarded in some way. Even if the individual wanted to strive for the best possible behavior for themselves and the company, they might still not have decided to redesign the Pinto's tank because they could have been highly influenced by the majority of decision makers in the company and not felt strong enough to go against their will. There are others who may have felt strong pressure to follow the "letter of the law," which Ford was complying with. Therefore, they would have felt no legal reason for making the design change. Only if they had a highly developed feeling of moral obligation might they have felt the need to go against the trend within the company in order to uphold the rights of the minority "regardless of the majority opinion (p. 115).
A closer review of our own approach to ethical decisions is important for individuals and for companies in order to avoid other similar personal and organizational disasters.
By the way, I survived my 1974 Ford Pinto! I was never rear-ended!
There are three possible approaches to make when making ethical decisions; a consequentialist approach, a deontological approach and a psychological approach. In a consequentialist approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing attention on the consequences of their action (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 89). In the deontological approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing on what is right or wrong based on common values and rights of individuals and/or groups (p. 91). A decision maker basing their action on a psychological approach may vary their actions based on the level of their of cognitive moral development (p. 115).
In the Ford Pinto case, an individual who took a consequentialist approach could easily make the decision which Ford did and produce the car despite the possibility of having the gas tank explode on low speed rear-end collisions. Furthermore, they would likely agree with Ford that the car did not need to be recalled once it was on the market. A decision maker using the consequentialist approach would look at the consequences for the broadest number of individual and groups as possible and make their decision based on doing the least harm and the most amount of good to all. Since the data showed that there were no more accidents with the Pinto than with other vehicles and the company's stakeholders would greatly benefit from keeping the costs low and bringing the car to market as fast as possible; they easily could have decided that the most benefit would come from going ahead with the design since there would be many who would benefit and likely no more than what existing standards permitted would be harmed. This is what Ford did despite numerous explosions and deaths.
On the other hand, a decision maker using the deontological approach would easily have decided not to move ahead with production and/or to recall the car once it was on the market since this individual would base their decision on a set of moral values and/or the a code of individual rights. They would likely argue that the car should not be produced because it would be ethical wrong to knowingly hurt defenceless individuals or because a small group of people harmed or killed. Unless the rights of these individuals could be protected, the decision would be not to produce the car, or if it was already on the market, the decision would be to recall the car and make the necessary repairs.
The results of a decision of an individual following a psychological approach could vary depending on several influencers. An individual, for example, may have agreed to move forward with the sale of the Pinto and/or not to recall it from the market because they may have been highly influenced by others in the company. Because of this influence they may have feared punishment from management or they may have hoped that by supporting the majority opinion that they would have been rewarded in some way. Even if the individual wanted to strive for the best possible behavior for themselves and the company, they might still not have decided to redesign the Pinto's tank because they could have been highly influenced by the majority of decision makers in the company and not felt strong enough to go against their will. There are others who may have felt strong pressure to follow the "letter of the law," which Ford was complying with. Therefore, they would have felt no legal reason for making the design change. Only if they had a highly developed feeling of moral obligation might they have felt the need to go against the trend within the company in order to uphold the rights of the minority "regardless of the majority opinion (p. 115).
A closer review of our own approach to ethical decisions is important for individuals and for companies in order to avoid other similar personal and organizational disasters.
By the way, I survived my 1974 Ford Pinto! I was never rear-ended!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
