Negating Naysayers
They're not saying 'no'; they're asking for a different approach to change management
(Image source: Berkeley University, USA)
Plenty of research suggests that when we make a decision in a way that allows us to change our minds later, we tend to be a lot less happy with the decisions that we make.
I call them indecision placeholders. It goes like this: “In principle, I would say no, but let me get back to you once I have given it some more thought”. You’re not further ahead.
In our personal lives, there’s something about creating the context to say “no” before we actually do in a way that doesn’t create inner conflict. This applies to invitations to participate somewhere, do something, or requests for help.
In a nutshell, it usually boils down to creating rules (for yourself) that prepare you to say “no”, for instance not going out more than two evenings during the week (because you know the consequences for yourself, like getting tired, cranky, or having less motivation to work out).
You will find plenty of self-help books on steps to ‘say no’ or, e.g., the 21 ways in which you can say “no” politely. “NO is OK, too” has been a pop-psychology thing off late as well.
But in business, especially in aviation, it’s a whole different story. In aviation, it’s often difficult to say “yes” to something for reasons or rules you may not have. And the lack of a yes is often interpreted as a NO. So, how do we negate these implicit naysayers? And what does it have to do with identity?
Read on about the categories of “no” naysayers use and how to help people move forward.
Naysayers
There are many reasons people use to resist something (i.e. a change) in business. There are also a number of ways in which naysayers can be classified, but I like to use these:
“There is no budget” (assuming capital cannot be re-allocated)
“It is not a priority” (assuming priorities cannot change)
“It is impossible” (assuming all avenues have been explored)
“It has been tried” before (assuming the context was the same)
“This is not new” (assuming one fully understands the concept)
“There are no resources or time for this” (making many assumptions!).
In the context of airline retail commercial optimization, for instance, where it would require the integration of marketing/social media, sales, pricing, ancillary, loyalty and RM (refer article), all these reasons could be cited (refer to the above categories):
“There is no budget because we don’t know what it means”
“We have more important things to do, like NDC”
“It cannot be done because there are different departments, each with bosses”
“We looked at this but there was no system to use for it”
“We already have a O&O, CRM and MarTech” (not the same)
“We have made other project commitments”.
* * * * *
People that think alike or have similar emotional systems at play (notably fear) tend to group together and it helps fostering the group thinking syndrome (refer article). Within that group, you have predominant identities (at work, not to be confused with people’s identities), and fluctuating personalities (they change colors across 7 elevator-style floors).
I’ll tackle that another day.
But in the case of integrating commercial functions in a new airline organization, the resistance also stems from higher toward the top and predominant personality types at the helm of airlines (which I will cover in “Aviation, A-Typical”, an upcoming article).
This is because these types of projects demand focus, attention, and risk. The priority is always mainly the day-to-day execution, the operation, and there are too many unknowns.
The most important unknown, is, actually twofold:
1) How can we define and size tangible benefits (“is it worth it?”)?
2) Which of the functional department heads should lead the organizational change, i.e. who can head up such a new organization?
Focusing on the naysayers, I have recently tried a new technique at a client site where all the categories of “nay” were used to deflect initiatives, despite executive sponsorship.
It boiled down to breaking people up into small groups (1-3) where in each group, at least one person did not work in any of the targeted functions, and asking one question:
Under which conditions would you say “yes”, and what would it take?
Prior to having these sessions, we had agreed on:
An overall goal to map (goal-centric) enterprise workflows (refer article)
A list of inputs and outputs (irrespective of which ‘department’ would provide it)
Drawing a picture of a “System” where each participant could define their role
Pinpointing specific areas where a “machine” could help accelerate a process, whether it was about information gathering, calculations, or actioning decisions
[This was the lay down the foundational framework for Enterprise AI work later, refer article]List areas where each wanted to become the next upskilled multi-disciplinary expert (like “what would you find exciting to learn next”?).
With this approach, I created the field for Hybrid Intelligence (refer article) and organizational change in the context of AI-driven architecture (refer article).
The human approach always wins.
Tension in Comprehension
But, the biggest obstacle driving all categories of ‘nay’ being cited was the elephant in the room. It is where everybody is evasive using other (competent) masks.
It was related to comprehension.
Nobody volunteers to admit that they cannot grab concepts, not understand a vision, or not interpret a roadmap well. And then there is the mix of people with different cognitive abilities. Some people need to see an end post, a goal. Others first need to see the next, small, incremental step in practice. Combining both it nearly impossible.
But the tension in comprehension exists and is often overlooked. And it is worse when the intermediate steps still have to be doctored, i.e. worked out, especially around systems and new capabilities.
This spaghetti plate of different stimuli in most people’s brain increases cortisol, the hormone related to stress, and the natural reaction is to apply the brake, and say “NO”.
So what is done about comprehension? Do leaders understand comprehension before they work on comm plans?
* * * * *
Upskilling
Sometimes, the humans need to upskill (provided it is on their terms) to new thinking before planned changes can be communicated.
Standard response to voicing this: “We do not have time for this”.
So, while we overlook softer requirements, we are raising barriers to success and laying the ground for future finger pointing.
So we upskill in thinking through open sessions, even 1-1 if necessary. We then upskill people for processes that will be slightly designed and dictated by machines (AI) and general technology. This is necessary because accelerated ‘thinking and calculating’’ will be provided by algorithms ingested in their processes.
That’s the relationship we will all have to get used to.
There are always many opportunities to say “nay”, but what are you saying “nay” to, really?
Many airlines are conservative, yet fail to instill even the smallest of changes. That is because there is a going concern, which stalls efforts.
I argue that airlines are most conservative in upskilling conceptual thinking.
There are three steps I have recommended in this area:
Create a bridge between HR/Talent and the business and create a cognitive skills team
Create training products in conjunction with organization redesign plans
Build a synthetic platform that mimics the airline as a digital (improved) twin
Use this simulated environment as a upskilling training product before you kickstart the actual projects.
This is costly. Likely in the USD 0.5-2 million range every year for three years.
But it might save your brand, create goodwill, and deliver a differentiated service product that drives sustainable return to shareholders.
There is another level that will be necessary to enable this at industry level and it has something to do with undercurrents that flow in aviation we need to heed.
It will be a topic for another day.
Wishing you all a wonderful day, and greetings from gusty Montréal. Still snow squalls!
Ricardo
Montreal, Tuesday, 4 April 2023
Feel free to contact me for questions, comments, or a chat:
ricardo(at)pomonaadvisors(dot)com
my general email has changed to: info(at)ricardopilon(dot)com