View profile

Work Futures Daily - Yes, Change Is Hard. So What?

We equate hard with likely failure, working with the un-self-aware, PwC’s new training program, Uber

Work Futures

October 22 · Issue #1015 · View online
The ecology of work, and the anthropology of the future.

We equate hard with likely failure, working with the un-self-aware, PwC’s new training program, Uber Works, Jason Fried debunks ‘creating culture’, students collaborating, Centigo: a bossless organization.

Beacon NY - 2018-10-21 — More research about innate bias holding us back, in this case Nick Tasler looks into our bias toward believing things that are hard to accomplish are likely to fail.
I confess that I find that bias in myself. What about you?
If you’re getting this you probably signed up at (or one of its predecessors) or If someone forwarded this to you, sign up here.
Consider making a donation. We appreciate your support.
Long Takes
Stop Using the Excuse “Organizational Change Is Hard” | Nick Tasler outlines research that confirms what you may have suspected: we are biased toward equating things that are hard – like organizational or operational changes – with the likelihood they will fail:
During nearly every discussion about organizational change, someone makes the obvious assertion that “change is hard.” On the surface, this is true: change requires effort. But the problem with this attitude, which permeates all levels of our organizations, is that it equates “hard” with “failure,” and, by doing so, it hobbles our change initiatives, which have higher success rates than we lead ourselves to believe.
Our bias toward failure is wired into our brains. In a recently published series of studies, University of Chicago researchers Ed O’Brien and Nadav Klein found that we assume that failure is a more likely outcome than success, and, as a result, we wrongly treat successful outcomes as flukes and bad results as irrefutable proof that change is difficult.
Tasler uses the example of the mythical 70% failure rate of change efforts, which has been repudiated over and over, but never seems to go away. It has been traced back to Michael Hammer’s Reengineering the Corporation, despite Hammer later trying to stamp it out, saying
In Reengineering the Corporation, we estimated that between 50 and 70 percent of reengineering efforts were not successful in achieving the desired breakthrough performance. Unfortunately, this simple descriptive observation has been widely misrepresented and transmogrified and distorted into a normative statement…There is no inherent success or failure rate for reengineering.
Indeed, Tasler observes recent McKinsey research reveals that a third of execs say
their change initiatives were total successes, and another third believed that their change initiatives were more successful than unsuccessful. But only “about one in ten admit to having been involved in a transformation that was ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ unsuccessful.”
So, we need to change the thread of our discussion about change. Yes, it is hard, but so is everything worth doing.
I am reminded of Rebecca Solnit’s characterization about the hopeful, and how they differ from pessimists and optimists [emphasis mine]:
Hope locates itself in the premises that we don’t know what will happen and that in the spaciousness of uncertainty is room to act. When you recognise uncertainty, you recognise that you may be able to influence the outcomes – you alone or you in concert with a few dozen or several million others. Hope is an embrace of the unknown and the unknowable, an alternative to the certainty of both optimists and pessimists. Optimists think it will all be fine without our involvement; pessimists adopt the opposite position; both excuse themselves from acting. It is the belief that what we do matters even though how and when it may matter, who and what it may impact, are not things we can know beforehand. We may not, in fact, know them afterwards either, but they matter all the same, and history is full of people whose influence was most powerful after they were gone.
Short Takes
Working with People Who Aren’t Self-Aware | Tasha Eurich has researched self-awareness, and finds that the un-self-aware can cut ‘a team’s chance of success in half’.
PwC staves off disruption with immersive emerging tech training | Ron Miller profiles a PwC program to allow employees to get reskilled, investing 18 months to two years to do so. Really a radical commitment.
Uber takes a detour with plan to provide temporary staff | Uber is diversifying by creating a new short-term staffing operation for events and corporate functions. Uber Works has been underdevelopment in Chicago for months, and in LA before that.
Jason Fried debunks the conventional wisdom about 'creating culture’:
You can’t create a company culture. A culture always exists, even before a company is officially formed. You can only adjust the culture you have. You can adjust it a little or a lot, but you’re always starting from the current position. | Jason Fried (via Twitter)
Stephanie McKellop tweeted about students sharing a Google Doc:
via John Robb.
*Centigo: A Prime Example Of A Bossless Organization | The Corporate Rebels visit Centigo to learn about this bossless business. Fascinating.
From the Archives
Work Futures Daily - AI is Everywhere | But there is no agreement on the impact of AI-driven automation – from April 2018
Work Futures Daily - Work, Work, Work | Stress, surveillance, and a shorter life: all in a day’s work – from April 2018
Quote of the Day
You cannot change what you are, only what you do.
| Philip Pullman
Crossposted from
Did you enjoy this issue?
If you don't want these updates anymore, please unsubscribe here
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here
Powered by Revue
Stowe Boyd, 17 South Cedar Street, Beacon NY 12508