To change is to make something different from what it was, perhaps install something in place of something that appears to have been tried and true. To cause things to be different. In the construction industry the biggest changes have evolved around software for handling administrative data, tracking assets and project management and software and equipment that automates site surveying/management and the machines in the field.
Contractors are told (sometimes incessantly) that when management introduces change into an organization, it must accompany it with programs that train employees in what needs to be done as well as what’s expected of them, and to demonstrate how the change will make their job easier. Seems simple enough. So why do the majority of these efforts fail?
Because we’re human, says Meha Patel, principal management consultant at CDM Smith in Los Angeles, who explains the theory that we humans function according to two systems, each vying for control of our actions: a fast, quick-reacting emotional system and a slow, analytical system that, ideally, keeps the faster system from spinning out of control.
How did an engineering firm like CDM Smith get in the business of organization change management? “CDM Smith realized a long time ago that nobody understands the challenges managers in infrastructure face better than people who know about infrastructure. And because managers in this area tend to get promoted from technical roles, as a company we’re in a good position to bring these two areas of expertise together. My background is in engineering. When I got interested in project management and consulted with clients on how they could improve their project management skills, I discovered that a lot of them found it difficult to implement our recommendations even though they enthusiastically agreed with what we suggested. This got me interested in understanding what prevents people from changing and trying to develop ways to help them do so.”
According to Patel, the labels “fast” and “slow” refer to the relative speed with which our two human systems drive our behavior. Whereas our fast or emotional system is instantaneous and causes us to act quickly, often without our being aware of what we’re doing, it takes time and effort for the analytical system to catch up and take charge. And even when we think our slower analytical system is running the show, the fast-reacting system can override it. The slow system sets the alarm clock at night; the fast system hits the snooze button in the morning. The slower analytical system tells us to use the new work-order management software; the fast system prefers to use paper-a choice that may not be logical but seems easier and more familiar.
It’s the competition between these two systems that can cause the development of change-associated training to be frustrating and fail. Logic and reasoning are not enough. Mandates are not enough. Managers must engage the two reaction systems simultaneously. Take machine control. If operators thought about it logically, they would recognize the technology makes it easier for them to quickly and consistently achieve the tolerances jobs now require (the slow system). But their initial knee jerk or emotional reaction might be that it’s taking their job away (the fast, emotional system): If the software’s controlling the blade, what’s left for me to do? They may feel the job skills they’ve spent a lifetime developing are being denigrated, which can cause them to be uncooperative or attempt to sabotage implementation of the new technology.
What does engaging the two systems look like for a manager? One way is to project the negative responses that may occur from the change to be introduced, that is, the emotional responses people might experience when they’re faced with doing things differently. Instead of saying “We’re doing this because it will make the department or division or company more efficient,” it’s much more effective to help people understand how what you want them to do will make things easier for them or help them with some aspect of their job. In the case of machine control, one strategy might be to remind reluctant operators that their job is not pushing a machine around; it’s the larger job of preparing the building site so that construction can proceed efficiently and without errors which could cost time and money-a strategy designed to replace their dented pride with a sense of individual importance and significance to the organization.
Even most importantly, managers have to be specific about the actual behaviors they expect to see their employees adopt once change is implemented. Perhaps your organization has initiated a companywide safety campaign to motivate employees to pay better attention to their health and safety, and let’s say that one or two or whatever number of your field crews has gotten sloppy about wearing vests and hardhats. It won’t work for your field superintendents to say, “I need to see increased safety practices on the job site.” According to Patel, they will have to be more specific: “Okay, starting on Monday morning, I need to see everyone at the tailgate meeting wearing a hardhat.”
“See” and “wearing” are critical. Your superintendents aren’t saying, “Everyone should have their hardhat with them.” They’re telling their crews they want them to wear them and it’s going to be very easy to check compliance. They follow this up with the commitment that if the whole crew is wearing their hardhats, they’re buying coffee and donuts all around (the reward) and that anyone who isn’t wearing the right protective gear to do their job doesn’t get to do it that day (the response for noncompliance).
The idea is to be consistent and precise about the behavior you expect, as well as your response to your employees’ performance until the desired behavior starts to become routine. Patel admits this requires sustained effort and will take a lot longer than you think it should, but also that it will happen if you articulate small, manageable, achievable changes that build momentum. “Every time you start to see a behavior being taken up as normal, you introduce something else, and over time you’ll see these accumulate and take on a momentum of their own so that it all starts to feel normal. You can’t push people farther or faster than they’re ready to go. Which is why sometimes the changes that you can most reasonably ask for are going to be very small. Instead of saying, “Tomorrow you’re going be doing everything differently,” call for incremental changes your employees can make that move them in the right direction.”
And how draconian do the repercussions of noncompliance need to be? “It really doesn’t take much for people to feel pain or loss, and if you take away something small, the emotional response is pretty magnified. For something serious like a safety violation, if the violations continue, in addition to following the law and contract terms, you might want to put a written warning in their performance review.”
In a nutshell, break down the behavior into its component parts and tell your employees not only what you want them to do but also exactly what you want this to look like. If you want your project managers to use the new software system, tell them you’re looking for them to spend an hour at the beginning and end of every day with data entry. Not wandering in from the field at the end of the day when it’s time to clock off and without enough time to put in their work orders.
Patel reminds us that managers tend to overestimate their organizations’ capacity to change. It’s easy to think that once the new rules are announced or the new software is installed on the computers, everyone is going to fall in line. And when that doesn’t happen, the response is often to issue ever stronger commands, the result of which will most likely be such negative behavior as work slowdowns or going around the system to satisfy the requirement but without either the organization or the individual reaping any benefit.
“We were helping one client implement a group of new standard operating procedures that would represent a pretty significant change for the organization,” says Patel. “Rather than handing over recommendations to management, we designed a series of workshops with their employees to develop these new procedures. We prioritized what procedures to redesign based on what gave them headaches and was otherwise most important to them. Then to support the implementation of what we developed, we had employees form task forces that were dedicated to each group of procedures. The task forces were responsible for testing the new procedures, changing them based on what they learned and then championing their use in the organization.”
So remember, your goal is to think about your employees as critical to your organization as the hard infrastructure and the heavy equipment you’ve made such a significant investment in. But because these employees live and breathe and walk and talk, they will be as subject to quick reactions as they are to develop logical responses to calls for change. And the most efficient use of your time is before designing a single class or printing one page of a manual, sit down and decide what a well-trained and willing employee will look like and brainstorm the emotional stumbling blocks that might keep them from getting there.
