Have you ever wondered what happens on the second day?

The second day after you kicked off a new performance improvement
process. Maybe it’s the second day after you started using a
performance improvement software programlike ManagePro.

On the second day all of your aspirations seem to abandon you.
You get swamped. It seems everything conspires to pull you
back into the usual grind. The day wraps up and you realize
you haven’t used your “new” process.

On the second day it seems you have to stay late to put into
practice what seems like such a good idea on the first day.

Actually on the second day you get the opportunity to start
excusing yourself… to accept it as permissible to not follow
through two days in a row with your new commitment. It’s
very tempting on day two, just one day after the launch, to
begin a pattern of sliding backwards.

Or you get the opportunity to prove to yourself that you’re
serious about that new change you kicked off less than 48
short hours ago. It’s funny how so much can change in just
48 hours, isn’t it?

I think the 2nd day is a better predictor of the future than
the first day. It’s certainly a better gut check on reality. It
gives you a chance to confirm if you’re going to put into
practice your new technology, your new processes, your
commitment to work smarter every day, or if that stuff is
just going to occur on the days when it’s convenient.

On the second day, you meet yourself, bogged down and
without all the adrenaline rush that can accompany
some of the newness of day one.

On the second day, if you’re like me, you realize you can’t
just muscle it, you’re going to need to start blocking out
time on the calendar to protect that commitment to change.
You’re going to have to be different, to make different time
choices to work or live different. The change isn’t going to
neatly fit into your schedule.

The second day and what it reveals is priceless. On the second
day you get a chance to make much more realistic decisions and
course corrections about what it will take to be successful with the
change you envision.

Bottom Line:
On the second day of any improvement process, with or without
software, we all face a test. A choice to starting putting off the
very process we just kicked off the day before… or reach even
a deeper level of commitment to the change process. The second
day is an important time to play big for yourself.

Links:
The Two Hurdles that Trip Us Up

Being Strategic About Time - Upping Your Game as a Manager

Several thoughts came to mind that might help you in the area of goal
and performance management, as I read through Shelley Metzenbaum’s (University of
Massachusetts) report and recommendation for the current administration on
Performance Management, entitled Performance Management
Recommendations for the New Administration.

Let’s go through two quotes from her work, and talk about what you can
use from it:

#1 - “Two simple tools - goals and measurement - are among the most
powerful leadership mechanisms available to a President for influencing the
vast scope of federal agencies.  Goals and measurement are useless, however,
unless used.”

While I strongly say “Amen” to the comment if you don’t use it, it’s useless,
I’m not sure goals and measurement of the goals are the most powerful lever
for the president or your business.  This may surprise you, especially since
we invest a lot in our software, ManagePro, as a goal-based software.
Here’s why I have reservations.

1. First of all our findings suggest that goals are only used by 4% of the
population at most, consequently they can be a poor organizing focus for
the vast majority of people.  Things like controlling risk, securing funds, etc,
are often much more compelling drivers for the majority, then setting goals.
If goals aren’t used actively by 96% of the population, guess what will happen?

Bottom line there are more powerful mechanisms to start with
when improving performance for government and your organization then
goals.  Keep reading.

2. Many people struggle with identifying goals that would help them
fundamentally move down the improvement sequence.  Even more people,
if not most, struggle with how to measure achievement of goals based upon data.

Perhaps it’s partly because tracking and measuring outcomes is not something
they have expertise at or financially resource the collection of outcome data.

Bottom line, our experience is that the competency at measuring what’s
relevant, precedes the ability of goal setting, in order for the goal-based
process improvement to have significant impact.

Goals and goal measurement only becomes  a powerful lever for Performance Management when you have in
place a process of data collection and data review for key operational and
growth processes.  Without good data, the validity of goal measurement
starts losing value rapidly.  Metrics is a more primary lever for ultimately
exerting change.

#2 - “Performance information should be used to improve performance
not just report performance for accountability purposes.”

She raises an excellent point.  Goals have no magic to suddenly drive
performance improvement.  In fact, as she points out, they can easily be
used to reduce risk and reinforce current practices, not improvement.

You can avoid this in your organization by adding a weight or
risk (of achieving) factor and a relative value-add to goal setting.  �
Without both additions, goal setting, again based upon the primacy of
managing risks and securing funds, can quickly move to support
the risk management features, not an improvement drive.

I think for most large (and small) organizations, of which the government
is one, you usually survive by being safe first, not innovative or assuming
risk stretch goals.  Our experience is that you need to take into account
the emotional drivers and the basis of security, before assuming
“improvement” goals will have much leverage.

Bottom Line: Here’s a couple of thoughts to chew on as they relate to the
business you work in and performance improvement.

1. Before you set and attempt to measure goals, confirm that you can get the
data to support the measurements.  Without good data and metics,
you’re in the fog.

2. Simplicity beats complex every time, including goal setting and
measurement.  Simplicity recognizes that everyone is already
overwhelmed with data and that goal setting threatens to add to
the data.  Simplicity, when incorporting brain chunk theory, says
we’re only going to be able to juggle 6 pieces of data at once.

With a simplicity model, goal packaging starts to look like the following:
a. Pick two metrics that best measure your operations efficiency, one internal,
the 2nd from your customer.  Set aside resources to gather that information
and track your results and what you’re doing about it, regularly.

b. Pick two improvement goals, one easy (low risk) to achieve, one hard to
achieve (high risk), define the value add for focusing on these two, vs. 99
other possible goals.  Eg. These need to be the biggest value add goals
at both ends of the risk scale.  Again, measure and track your results
and your plan.

c. Review your plan, your progress todates, your outstanding action items
in regular data focused meetings using technology that links the goals to
operational activities (and plans).  BTW, we found when using ManagePro
in organizations, that pulling the software and the performance review
right into the meeting is often the tipping point for successfully making the
cultural change to a goal and performance emphasis.  Leaving it to a
quarterly or year end report is the kiss of death.

Links:

Goal and Performance Management Technology

Follow-up, Metrics and Performance

In the last blog I talked about how important follow-up is to the employee feedback and review process.  In fact it’s possibly more important than much of the review.  And without a follow-up process, the value of the review seems to evaporate like a water on my windshield on a hot day.  Today, I just wanted to share a quick thought in parrallel as it applies to performance management.

If you think about it, follow-up is critical to employee reviews, but it’s just as important to strategic planning, and certainly to performance management.  Follow-up, buttressed by some type of assessment or measuring process is key to anything we expend significant resources on to produce a change .  That’s true whether the follow-up is a general assessment of “What worked” and “What didn’t”, or if it is tied to specific outcome metrics (ex. Improve % of customer retension, increase % of website activity, etc.)

Stephen Gill, in a blog this week - Describes an apt metaphor, characterizing our approach to measuring the impact of training and other “improvement” activities to playing golf in the dark - can’t accurately tell where the pin is, don’t know how close the ball you hit is to the pin, after while, you don’t care…  http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2653383/39418883

I do see that regularly in training efforts.  And on a broader scale, the analogy of investments in business and performance improvement look like playing golf without a clear assessment of the changes we make in swing or clubs.  As long as we are still on the fairway and the game is still ongoing… we keep playing, and hoping for the best. 

If there’s money in the bank, we keep playing.  Actually as the game rolls on, whether there’s more or less money in the bank, we in fact do develop theories about what “made the difference.”  The conclusions usually aren’t based on measurements, but on a perceptually based (not fact based, but much much less work to construct) opinions. 

This puts us at risk to look like story of the blind men describing the elephant by their immediate experience.  Notice how strongly we all react to others having conclusions that aren’t fact based… the conflict over the stimulus package today being one good example.  Assessment, and the facts that come out of it, can save you time and money, not to mention face.

Bottom Line:

Performance Management needs follow-up, which needs metrics in the worst way, otherwise it’s subject to false conclusions, inactivity or just expensive, poor return on investments in “performance enhancing” activities. 

Do yourself a favor, limit the performance investments to what you’re willing to invest in following-up and measuring in 2009.  I bet you’ll like the results.

Link:

Performance Management & Metrics Technology

Software adoption, change management, implementing innovation… it all has some striking similarities.  Time has slipped by and as the year wraps up I didn’t want to miss putting up a quick summary of the recent blogs on this whole process, and in particular software adoption.  Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and I hope in this case it’s at least worth several hundred.  I created this picture to underscore and pull together a number of the themes that drive any change or innovation process, including software adoption.  Themes that I’ve been covering in the last half dozen blogs.

 Here’s  a couple of take-aways that hopefully do well by you in the coming year:

1. There is no single reason why people adopt change - in fact different sub-groups within any organization adopt change for very different reasons.  If you’re in charge of driving it, pay attention to your audience and depending on where you are in the lifecycle, adjust your message and appeal to the emotional drivers that are in play.

2. Be careful of over-depending on the interest and time investment of executive sponsors, as this often declines as an important driver before the adoption process has become imbedded across enough of the organization to continue on its own.  E.g. you need more than a good sponsor, you need to use a process that works.

3. Emotions are important drivers of the change process, see my earlier blogs for a description of how to address the emotional drivers for each group.

Have a great 2009 and lots of success with all of the changes and software adoption opportunities you pursue.

 Links:
Politics, Emotion and Buy-in

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Fear

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Attraction

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Discomfort

This is the second in a two series blog on thoughts about what routinely trips up executive sponsors in a software launch. 

The first blog addressed the obstacle represented by the tendency to under-estimate the resources needed to launch a software package that invokes changes in work style, including the tendency for the sponsor to under-estimate their internal resources to stay involved and see the launch successfully through to completion.

The focus of this blog is the second obstacle of resistance from others that trips up sponsors.   If under-estimating is an internal problem, most people think of this one as an external problem caused by staff other than the sponsor.  It is actually both an external and an internal issue, but more about that latter.  Bottom line, RESISTANCE prompts the executive sponsor to make avoidable mistakes.

If you’re that executive sponsor you might describe the obstacle as running into a “buzz saw” of direct resistance from one of your direct reports or peers.  They directly or indirectly don’t comply with using the new software.  Now what?  In fact at this point, it usually gets worse.  You end up feeling like your authority is being challenged on some level, and at the same time you get in touch with the anxiety that you can’t do without that person or group’s work contribution - welcome to the uncomfortable feeling of “being held over a barrel.” 

Wonderful, and all you wanted to do was have everyone use this cool, new software!

By-the-way, the buzz saw didn’t just emerge over the launch of the software - but it usually does break through the “I’d rather not address that or think about it” box.  What do I mean by that? 

More specifically, the introduction of new software and the accompanying request to work (plan, follow-up, document, coordinate) in some new way stirs up latent “you’re not going to tell me or my department how to work” reactions.  The launch doesn’t create the tension, it just surfaces the unresolved tension between executives, between manager and direct report, or employer and employee, etc. who both need each other, but haven’t clarified and/or typically worked through this one critical point - that any job includes more than responsibility for completing a task, it also includes the responsibility for adopting certain processes, tools and values while completing the task (e.g. following the rules of priorities often set by someone else).

The most common mistake I see sponsors make at this point looks like some combination of the following: a) you pull back the mandate to adopt the software,  or b) you quit following up and tracking adoption and just use the software yourself,  and/or c) you stop requiring software adoption for this person, or their group… and there goes the launch.

Executives and Managers who sponsor software adoption launches are apt to run into two predictable obstacles that threaten the success of the launch.  The second prominent obstacle that trips up executive sponsors is RESISTANCE often unaccompanied by denial and discomfort about it’s existence.  The resistance to using the new software, is championed by a “powerful” individual or group, who you can’t really afford to say, “Use the new tool or walk,” and so you feel “held over the barrel” and are tempted to start granting concessions - don’t!

Suggestions: If you run into this obstacle inquire, address and resolve, don’t avoid, the resistance.   Don’t end up looking like a case example for Edwin Friedman’s book, A Failure of Nerve(Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix).  The resistance represents at best something that needs clarification and attention, at worst it represents an unhealthy part of the culture and work relationships which is not only uncomfortable, but loses money.  

Dibachi’s book “Just Add Management” list 7 simple basics that will serve you well as a set of guide lines or topics to work through if you’re running into this obstacle.   They include: 1. Your job exists to make this company a success.  2. Yes, I am the boss, so my priorities over-rule your preferences.  3. The customer pays all of our salaries.  4. Do what matters.  5. Do it right. 6. Track your progress.  7. Work smart.

Bottom Line: Remember, the resistance to the software launch represents issues that you need to address, not avoid.  It may be a simple mis-understanding, it may be an outgrowth of not feeling included or recognized, or it may be a symptom of deeper seated conflicts (ex. “even though you’re the boss, and sign my pay check, I’m going to work the way I want to”).  Irregardless, it pays to address and work through this obstacle, from both a software launch and overall organizational culture and performance perspective - it gets worse over time if you don’t.

Links:

Software Adoption: The Two Hurdles that Trip up Executive Sponsors (1 of 2)

Consulting Sevices to Help Launch ManagePro Software

After writing the past couple of weeks on some of the emotional processing we all go through when deciding to adopt new software, I wanted to take a moment and comment on two hurdles that routinely trip up executives and business managers, that a are sponsoring a software launch.  This is the first of two part blog. 

While on the road last week I was thinking that if you were ever in the position to launch software across your group of direct reports, or a team or a business group or division - you would probably want to know what are the two obstacles that most frequently trip up executives in this position.  Doing face plants are frustrating, expensive, embarrassing and no fun.

I see the same two obstacles emere over and over again, and I’ve run into them when doing launches for large organizations like the United Nations in Rome, international firms in Asia, as well as in small, owner operated businesses in the US. Funny how it is the same regardless of where I go in the world.

So let’s get into this topic.  Executive sponsored software launches get stalled or have a marginal success rate for one of two reasons. What would you guess?

- It’s not trying to find just the right software, that stalls the process before you ever get to a launch.

- It’s not software features, and it’s not training, interestingly enough.

The first obstacle is INTERNAL or resides within the executive sponsor - and it prompts a very avoidable mistake.  If you’re that executive you:

a) Underestimate how much effort it will take to launch the software. You’ve usually embedded some pretty significant culture change requirements in the use of the “new” software package and you’re in a fair state of denial about how much work it will take to get people to change their work style so that they can effectively use the new software.

We see this all the time with ManagePro. Essentially ManagePro requires that people document progress updates and to-dos in order to work in a more coordinated, collaborative manner. If your business group is used to doing very little documentation and handle most things by phone calls or meetings… adoption of a software product like ManagePro represents a significant change in the work culture. 

I don’t mean to represent that software adoption is something that most teams can’t accomplish - they can, you can. And it can generate very high returns, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars in quick order, but you need to evaluate what degree of forward step it represents for your group. Instead of minimizing or under-estimating the required resources, you may need to “buckle up” before launching the program when it involves the stressors associated with CHANGE an innovation.

b) The under-estimating often seems related to how much interest you the executive have in the change process. If you don’t like that sort of thing, you’ll find that it can quickly get more time consuming than you enjoy or are prepared to give.   What typically happens next is that you get busy on “next” early in the software adoption process, lose interest as it “drags” on, and don’t keep actively sponsoring the adoption process and removing obstacles that emerge. Actually you may be rather bored with the whole change process which surfaces when you introduce new software.

We consistently find that if this is you, you, as a sponsor, run out of interest or attending before the launch of new software is securely established. You may assign the responsibility to someone else, typically someone who isn’t as invested as yourself in the outcome, and who may not have the resources to complete the task.

One final side note.  Many of the people in the launch recognize this on some level (recognize that the sponsoring executive or manager will run out of interest pretty early in the game), and mirror the executive in pulling back from the effort as well. There goes the launch!

Bottom Line:

Executives and Managers who sponsor software adoption launches are apt to run into two predictable obstacles that threaten the success of the launch. Here’s a summary of the first obstacle and briefly what to do about it.

1. The most prominent obstacle that lies within the sponsor is UNDER-ESTIMATION.   Under-estimating the amount of effort required to launch new software because of the change factor involved, and under-estimating of the strength of their own continued interest and active sponsorship. The resulting fall-out is a software launch that is under-resourced, and for which existing +resources are front-end loaded.

Suggestions: Plan and resource software adoption as the expensive and valuable process improvement project it is. Make sure you are not the only sponsor and that you have multiple, highly involved, powerful sponsors that will help you drive the process… unless you like to climb steep mountains all by yourself.  Make sure you have the resouces to go the distance.

Talk with you in the next blog - send me your reactions.

Links:

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotions and Software Buy-in

The emotional Doorway of Discomfort is absolutely primary for buy-in when the decision to adopt software involves a change in behavior from past practices.  Eg. when adopting the new software means replacing existing (read comfortable) practices.  

Kuhn wrote about this experience lucidly in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution.  Essentially pointing out that scientific thought through the ages (and most other human thought as well), does not change to adopt new models for thought and behavior, new paradigms, unless the old is first dismantled and de-constructed.

Let me share a more simple way to frame it.  We all know the phrase, “Don’t Fix it If it Ain’t Broke“.  Well, flip that phrase and you have the essence of the (3rd) Discomfort doorway.  In order to get the “early majority” to adopt software, in order to adopt a “Fix,” you have to make it unmistakably clear that the current practice is “Broke” and doesn’t allow people to perform at an acceptable level.

Read this carefully - Generating buy-in means you have to prove (pull them into an often discomforting demonstration of how) the current process is “Broke.”  You do this by asking the “Oh *&*#!” questions, as defined by Neil Rackham.

This means, if you are escorting people through this doorway, you need data.  You need to immerse people in enough recent data that points out the inadequacy of current practices, that they get uncomfortable and move from defending the existing to recognizing “they can’t get there from here” and join you in the adoption of a new solution.

Without this process, the very important “early majority” group, representing over 1/3 of your user group, see the adoption of new software as an intrusion upon their already busy schedule - a fix for something that isn’t broke… and the adoption fails.

Let me describe how this doorway works.

1. The door stays closed as long as this group is comfortable.  Think about that for a moment.  That means that to get though this doorway you have to raise discomfort.  The best way to do that without engaging in a direct personal attack is to surface both inadequacy and frustration with the limits of the current process

2. The doorway only opens when you raise enough data points that this group becomes uncomfortable with the results of staying with the familiar.

3. If leading this group through software adoption, as Kuhn points out, you need to show that the current software system fails at some point.  In terms of work performance that means you need to cite examples that prove that the current system incurs costs and risks that are no longer acceptable.  Costs that you are no longer willing to accept the burden of paying, and when confronted - this group is certainly not interested in having subtracted from their pay check.

4. When you point out the current system is wasteful and frustrating, you create a tipping point of Discomfort.  You need to highlight the (usually hidden) costs directly enough (e.g. create enough discomfort) that the door swings open and individuals in this group can move to adopt a better solution… or move on.

Bottom Line: 

1. More than 1/3 of any user group are made up of what’s been called the “early majority”.  Their adoption and buy-in is key for the rest of the organization.
2. No discomfort about the results of maintaining a “broke” system - means no adoption of new software for the early majority user group.

The decision to adopt innovation and new software is contingent on their movement through a doorway marked by discomfort and frustration with existing practices. Until the current process is proven to be broken, this group does not become discomforted enough to adopt the introduced software effectively. This may sound pretty harsh, but it is more a statement of reality and addressing it honestly.  It reminds me of “reality groups” that Glasser founded to drive behavior change in school systems in the 1970s.

Sidebar - Often the leaders I work with, who want to move their work groups ahead for improved coordination and collaboration, get uncomfortable about creating discomfort in others.  The tendency is to switch back to emphasizing attractive features and lowering learning fears.  If this sounds like you, remember this doesn’t work with the early majority group.  Also remember that without the early majority adopting the software, you really have a failed launch, with just early technology adopters using the software… who don’t have enough social power to directly influence adoption in the organization.

But one thing it does point out is that most leaders I work with have at least one or more valuable employees who they shrink from making uncomfortable, for fear of loss, and in so doing set up a situation of being “held hostage”.  More about that leadership issue as it limits software adoption in the next blog.

Links:

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Fear

Software Adoption and the Doorway of Attraction

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotion and Buy-in

If attraction is the emotional vehicle by which “early adopters” select software, fear seems to be the driver for technology adoption by the “late majority” as coined by Roger’s Innovation Adoption model.   Put succintly, they represent 34% or more of your user group and they only adopt new software when they are forced to in one form or another, and even then they heavily use reference or recommendation from their peer group (not what the early technology group is recommending).

Let me bounce off of you two different sides of fear, which you can address proactively to effect software adoption for this group. 

1. If you think of the Fear door way as having two sides, the first side is the fear of “not getting it“, of failing, looking bad, of the learning experience being protracted and uncomfortably drawn out.  The fear of not being able to learn or use the software directly effects software adoption.  You’ve heard people voice this type of fear.  Comments I have heard from prospective users in the past few days has included statements like, “It looks complicated” or “How long will this take to learn” (translation I’m afraid this will take a long time or be difficult for me).

Essentially fear that acts as a blockage for adoption is based upon the anticipation that adopting the software will be unpleasant, time consuming and even embarrassing.  You want to minimize this fear using tactics such as: multi-mode training modalities, only introduce training on topics people “need to know” (e.g. 80% of the users only need to know how to use 20% or less of the software), and train using simple, sequential steps that build competency based upon successful mastery experiences.  You also want to provide peer support and peer champions. 

2. The other side of the fear doorway, a different type of fear, also acts as a stimulus to adopt software.  Let’s go over that type of fear so that you understand it and know how to work with it. Remember it is the driver for innovation adoption with the late majority. Without it, adoption, that’s right the adoption you want those other people to pick up, will sputter and fail.

The type of fear that helps the “late majority” adopt innovation is typically a fear of negative consequences.  Negative consequence can range from the fear of missing out, to the fear of negative exposure (they’ll find out I’m not using the software).  Highlighting consequences and consistent follow-up during the adoption sequence all help this group’s fear of loss (their status, their bonus, their boss’s good will, their job) drive adoption - but only it seems if addressed and not passed over by the innovation leaders.

Assuming that a software adoption that isn’t going well today with this group, will “just take a little time,” is wishful thinking.  It is also inaccurate.  The late majority always reminds me of Newton’s 1st law of motion (also known as the ‘Law of Inertia’).  Essentially this group doesn’t move unless impacted by something that moves them.  If they aren’t moving now, the passage of time isn’t going to make it happen.

1. Fear plays an important emotional doorway for many potential software users.  More than one third of an entire user group may find Fear to be the primary driver effecting software adoption. For those of you who purchased software for a larger group based upon Attraction drivers, recognizing the importance of introducing and maintaining the consequences side of the Fear doorway is critical to your success.

2. Both reducing learning threshold based fears, and selectively reinforcing fears of negative consequences, help move the adoption process along.  As important as Fear is for many, the next and final doorway I’d like to talk about is the most important one for the success of an overall launch.

Links:

The Role of Attraction in Software Adoption

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotion and Software Buy-in

Helping you Build a Case for Change

So I’m writing this week about the emotions behind decisions and ultimately three emotional reaction groups that precede software adoption and buy-in. People seem to have a pattern or predisposition to be most receptive to one of the three emotional door ways (an emotional response before they make a decision), even though they may use all three in the life cycle of software adoption.

Let’s start with the easiest door to walk people through - the Door way of Positive Emotions - or more specifically Attraction. Actually as I write that I wonder if it is easiest, or just the most comfortable to navigate. Probably the latter.

As I wrote in the previous blog, this door way represents the phenomenon of paying attention, or making a choice, because you’re first attracted to something. When you’re in this space, you’re attracted to something observable in the software application, or attracted to something you believe it is going to provide, or attracted to what the people who use this application are achieving (and likely you’re not).

When I hear people walking through this door way on the way to software adoption, they’re saying things like: “That’s cool, that’s going to save me time, I like those features, just think what we could do with that, I would like to make just 1/10th of what they made using that software…”

Whether it’s the promise of saving time or money, or just an attractive, immediately useable design, people who walk through this door way, seem to be able to move from positive emotion right into software adoption.  In some ways they represent what is often described as “early adopters” through-out the literature. If they like it, they use it.

Years ago, working with a predominantly Finnish team from Nokia, I was struck by how much the emotional appeal of “clever,” when attributed to a design, pulled them into a go-forward decision. I think the power of that pull is general true across the board for people in this group. The group that responds to the Positive or Attraction door way is less tied to past conventions, and finds it relatively easy to move forward in software adoption.

When I see people walking through this process when it comes to ManagePro, it’s often either attraction to features (ex. being able to drag and drop Outlook email into work projects and convert them into progress updates and todos ) that commonly gets the eyes to light up, or it’s a time and money savings expectation (ex. “if I could have all the information I need within a couple of clicks, I could be a lot more efficient…”).

Take-aways: Here’s a couple of things I regularly see on this topic, some that you might want to be aware of - some that you will definitely want to avoid.

1. Creating an environment to facilitate decision making for people who walk through the Attraction door to reach a decision is a relatively easy, painless, even fun process (compared to escorting people through the other doors). Basically it means actively listen to what interests this group of people, and make sure you highlight that in the software you want them to adopt.

2. Remember with this group you are emphasizing appeal; and attraction, like politics is always personally defined.  You’re going for the feeling of “I like this, this intrigues me, this will make my life easier…”. So don’t expect that what appeals to you, appeals to them.

3. It’s the most frequent choice or focus that I see executives use to introduce software. Unfortunately it only resonates with a small percentage of users and is actually a poor choice as the primary driver for facilitating software adoption for the majority of would be users!

You read what I just wrote, right? It’s a really important point to not miss.

Showing people how “cool” a piece of software is - is not the primary driver for adoption for most users.  It best fits “early adopters” which are a minority of users.

So keep reading and I’ll talk about the two doorways the majority of users pass through in the next couple of blogs, especially when software adoption invokes a change to the way work or business is conducted.

Links:

The Emotions Behind Decision Making

Politics, Emotion and Software Buy-in

The decisions you make, including which software to buy, the commitment to learn a software, and then the commitment to use a software as part of your new suite of tools (each is different by the way, and not necessarily overlapping), all involve a back-drop of emotions.

Actually the emotions are more of a door-way to the decision making room. You have to go through the doorway to get to the mental space in your brain where decisions or commitments are made.

If you try and move yourself or others to a decision without first going through the emotional doorway, and by the way there are roughly three possible doorways to go through, you will find it tough going, and the results you anticipate won’t be forth coming.

I’m going to cover the the theme of the differences between buying, learning and adopting, as well as the three different emotional doorways in upcoming blogs.

But let me focus briefly on why it’s so important to understand the emotional connection to decision making, and the fact that emotions precede the intellectual aspect of decision making.

Here’s a construct I use and you can too:

1. Emotions precede cognition - don’t get this reversed. Richard Cytowic’s book, The Man Who Tasted Shapes, is one of the most interesting reads on this topic, but you can find much more if you research decision making.

Bottom line, we feel first, then engage logic to form a decision.

Albert Einstein even eluded to it, as he described the pursuit of some of the most rigorous intellectual thinking and logic, beginning with emotion. “The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart” Albert Einstein

It starts with the heart.  Even logic and decision making starts with emotions as a precursor and context for the effort.  The implication is that if you need people to think differently, can I say “logically”, including making a decision such as buying-in to software adoption, you first need to help them walk through one of three emotional doorways (and sometimes all three). Notice I didn’t say present them with the facts.

Those three doorways look like the following to me:

1. The Door way of Positive Emotions; something that pulls or attracts us, e.g. I’ll use it because I like it, it’s clever, it’s cool, it’s attractive…
2. The Door way of Fearful Emotions; something that helps me avoid what I’m afraid of, e.g. if we don’t use it the bad guys will get us, we’ll lose, I’ll look behind, foolish, unprepared, etc.
3. The Door way of Frustration/Defeat Emotions, e.g. We need something to help us not have another embarrassing mistake, miss a deadline, over-run the budget, have details slip through the cracks… (all involving coming to a point of frustration with the existing system).

There’s a lot more to say about how to help people through each of the different doorways, plus some important things you need to know when working with people who are entrenched with the past… and therefore not inclined to follow you or your decision into the future. Keep tuned, I’ll write more frequently to walk you through these topics this week. Be sure to leave me your thoughts and questions.

Bottom Line: The decisions involved in buying, learning and adopting software always start with emotions, one of three emotional groups in fact. Ignoring the emotions, tends to result in a flawed, or unsupported decision making process

Link:

Finding the Pain before you Ask for a Decision