Informative and entertaining, his talk has led me to think about how Agile coaches and facilitators can use concepts from sociology and psychology to improve their chances of success when coaching Agile teams – and while the concepts here are valid for all areas of coaching, I found them particularly interesting when working with teams and individuals showing a particular resistance to Agile adoption.
Watts started his presentation by reminding participants that all change requires individuals and teams to “leave something behind” – we have to abandon something we currently think / do / exhibit in favour of something different, a new trait, way of thinking or way of working where benefits may be implied but are as yet unknown by the individual or the team (to learn more about Geoff’s talk, the full set of slides is available on https://submissions.agilealliance.org/system/attachments/attachments/000/000/107/original/Agile_2013_-_Simple_Maths_v3.pdf?1385085683)
Taking the above statement and examining it through an Agile coach’s lens, there are two major emotions that immediately spring to mind when I think about “adopting Agile”:
- Rejection
- Anxiety
As Geoff Watts points out, we have to leave something behind in order to adopt something new – which means that the underlying implication is one of rejection (of the current behaviour, the current way of thinking or working). While the experience of rejection is subjective, some studies suggest that the neurological response to social exclusion in humans is similar to that produced by physical pain (http://edge.org/conversation/why-rejection-hurts).
Usually, this feeling of social rejection / exclusion is followed or accompanied by anxiety – both anxiety regarding the “loss” of what we’re about to give up and anxiety about “what comes next”. In order to create an environment where individuals and teams are able to channel the emotions of rejection and anxiety into a positive outcome, as coaches we first need to create a “willingness to change”.
A formula for change
If we look at Gleicher’s Formula for change, we can see that successful change requires the following:
D x V x F > R
where
D = Dissatisfaction with the current state
V = Vision of a positive future state
F = First steps towards the vision
R = Resistance to change
So in order to overcome resistance and create a “willingness to change”, we need to ensure that the combination of the dissatisfaction with “how things are”, the potential benefits of implementing the change and the perceived potential for success is greater than the feelings of rejection and anxiety imposed by the change.
Firstly, let’s look at some aspects that will increase resistance in teams and individuals.
1. The Endowment effect
The Endowment Effect is a concept within the field of behavioural economics and suggests that we assign more value to things we already own than things we could potentially acquire, regardless of the objective value of what is being traded. Some experiments even suggest that individual attachment to the “owned” item is irrelevant and people will exhibit the same behaviour if ownership has only been established a short while ago. For coaching individuals and teams, this means that they will value their “current way of working” over anything you may be able to suggest, regardless of objective argument to the contrary, or even if this way of working had only been introduced rather recently. For a comprehensive discussion on the Endowment effect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect
Individuals have different “loci of control”, ranging from highly internally focussed (what happens to me is a result of my choices and actions) to highly externally focussed (I have very little actual influence in what happens to me). As a coach, individuals with a highly internal focus pose different challenges to those with an external focus when introducing (imposed) change – while internally focussed individuals will likely see “imposed change” as a loss of control (and therefore a fundamental threat to their self-perception), externally focussed individuals may resist less, however actual commitment and ownership of the change can be difficult to achieve.
3. Motivational Drivers
In his book “Drive – the surprising truth about what motivates us”, Dan Pink suggests that there are 3 factors that can support intrinsic motivation (or, if absent, kill motivation):
-
Autonomy
This factor means that most individuals prefer to be self-directed (regardless of whether their locus of control is internal or external, which is a representation of how much actual influence an individual believes they have) – any imposed change will directly contradict their ability to self-direct and therefore increase resistance by decreasing motivation to work towards the change.
-
Mastery
People do things to get better at them – seeing progress in our ability to carry out a particular task, fulfil a function or implement a process enhances our desire to get even better at it. Any change poses a threat to this need – we will have to do something we haven’t done before and therefore we probably won’t be great at it at first. This is off-putting to most people and will increase resistance to change – who wants to be “sufficient” at something new when we can be “great” at something we already do?
-
Purpose
Dan Pink suggests that people are motivated by some transcendent purpose – we want to be part of something bigger than ourselves and we want to make the world a better place (Pink doesn’t really elaborate on whether this is also true for the neighbour who keeps using your bin at their will….). This also ties in with the “Transcendence”, one of the later additions to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Now after all the doom and gloom, let’s have a (more positive) look at what we as coaches can do to tip the change equation in our favour:
Decrease the resistance to change
Above we’ve looked at all the different elements that can contribute to making individuals and teams resist more – this section is all about what we as coaches can do to decrease resistance to increase the chance of making teams and individuals willing partners and create commitment to the change:
-
Control the sense of “loss”
We looked at the “Endowment effect” which suggests that individuals value what they have now more than what they could attain, contributing to the sense of loss and the associated pain. As coaches we can consciously focus on framing changes as additions to an individuals’ skillset rather than changing or replacing what they have done, how they have behaved and what they have believed in for so long.
Language is important here – when working with people resisting Agile approaches I like to emphasise Agile as an evolutionary approach to delivering solutions based on the knowledge and learning gathered from many different sources and over an extensive period of time. This really means that as an individual, you don’t have to “forget what you knew” and start afresh – it’s simply additional information we can use to enhance our existing knowledge and skill!
-
Beware of “change frenzy”
One of the most fascinating things about the studies conducted into the Endowment effect was the observation that it didn’t appear to matter whether or not individuals had formed attachment to what they perceived to be “theirs” and how long they possessed the item was irrelevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect#Examples). This ties in with an observation I have made myself many times – change appears to become harder the more you “practice”!
We often generalise (as I am now!) to think that as long as we practice something (i.e. repeat a certain task / behaviour over and over) the more likely we are to progress in our ability to carry out the task / behaviour. Except when it comes to adapting to change, where the simple act of repetition often seems to have the opposite effect – the more change people are subjected to, the warier they become. Over the years I’ve spoken to many people who complained that their organisation changed too much – a few years ago it was PRINCE 2, then it was RUP, now it’s Scrum and next month it’s probably something else!
As a coach you may not have much influence on what happens on a wider organisational level, however being aware of the fast attachment individuals form with what they “own” can help minimise perceived “change frenzy” for the individual / in the team. Focus on highlighting “tweaks” and “improvements” over “changes” and set correct expectations upfront – personally I try to take all focus on “a method” (e.g. Scrum) away from individuals and teams as fast as possible and focus on “their method” and I have found that this has helped me when it came to introducing practices from other schools of thought. Because a team isn’t focussed on “doing Scrum”, introducing e.g. “pair programming” is less likely to be perceived to be a “change” to the method and more an “improvement” to “our method”.
-
Understand and use the locus of control
While our locus of control is developed based on a variety of factors, adults can choose to keep or change their locus of control consciously and may benefit from a deliberate change in terms of quality of life, overall satisfaction and happiness. Since our personal locus of control is tightly linked with our self-perception, this is not a light undertaking and I would suggest to stay away from deliberate “meddling” unless a coach is qualified to take an individual on that journey. That said, extremes on either end of the continuum (internal or external) can make change (as well as the coaching process!) a painful experience for both the coachee and the coach, so here are some of my personal strategies on working with these extremes:
High internal focus
Individuals with an extremely high internal focus may rebel against externally imposed change as it doesn’t gel with their self-perception and since they believe that what is happening to them is a direct result of their own choices and actions, they are more likely to take positive action to change their jobs than those with an external focus (http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol9/no3/JBAM_9_3_4.pdf) – as a coach, this drive is important and powerful if it can be directed towards implementing the change.
On the flip side, people with an internal focus may blame themselves if their (or their teams’) action had an undesirable effect – the more extreme their focus, the more likely they are to disregard any evidence to external factors. Personally, I found it beneficial to be continuously solution-focused when working with people with a high internal focus as enabling them to take action to improve on the situation.
High external focus
Individuals with an extremely high external focus may be less likely to rebel against imposed change, however getting sufficient commitment and ownership to implement changes can be tricky since individuals on the extreme end do not believe that outcomes can be influenced by their own actions. My personal strategy for working with people with a high external focus is to draw attention to very small goals which are unlikely to be impacted by external factors and don’t require the input of others – for example, focussing on getting an individuals’ tasks organised is smaller and more achievable by an individual than organising a whole teams’ work. Create many small successes and reinforce the message – they have taken control, they are responsible and they have made a difference.
You – the coach
This is probably my #1 recommendation for any coach – know who you are. Nothing happens in isolation and any response from individuals or teams is in some way a response to your approach (whether deliberate and desired or entirely accidental), so I find it pays to be aware of my own strengths and weaknesses, current challenges and my perception of self.
Knowing where I, as the coach, am on the control scale helps me help others as it highlights the difference between their reality and mine.
As a coach I find it important to work in a coachee’s reality – whether their concerns, issues, challenges, criticisms, etc are “real” (I’m using this word carefully – in this context I intend it to mean something that is perceived by a number of individual agents in a near-identical fashion) or “perceived” is not for me to judge – if it’s “real” for the coachee, it is “real” enough to be taken seriously, regardless of my personal conviction.
To learn more about the Locus of Control and how to identify where you fit in the continuum, see http://www.cwcsit.com/new/article-description.php?tid=57&&article_id=57
-
Increase ownership
This is especially important / useful when the change is imposed on an individual or a team – feeling a lack of autonomy can decrease an individual’s self-motivation, which in turn will translate into refusal to accept the change and / or a lack of commitment in the implementation. As coaches we can use the mandate for change as a tool of empowerment for teams by allowing them to create their own change journey and acting as facilitators of the change process (rather than a stocky horse trying to drag a particularly stubborn cart).
-
Encourage and recognise mastery
While an individuals’ need for mastery can increase their resistance to change, as coaches we can also use people’s desire for mastery to drive and implement change. Once again, language is important – reframe change as an improvement of existing skills, additional information to further knowledge and focus on the implementation of change as part of the journey on the way to mastery. This also ties in with not going “change crazy” – allow sufficient time for individuals to master new skills and feel a sense of achievement, highlight the improvements continuously and only introduce additional change when individuals have reached a comfortable level of proficiency.
-
Provide purpose
In a perfect world, organisational goals, vision and mission statements would be so inspirational, well-formulated and specific enough to be relatable by employees, however in reality I find that many people I work with see their company vision more as a “sales and marketing tool” than something to actually be inspired by. So as coaches we also need to address the fact that people like their efforts to have some purpose, something bigger than just “getting paid” or “keeping my job”. This one I’ve been thinking about long and hard and eventually ended up referencing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, especially looking at the following three needs:
Cognitive need
In one of his later additions to the hierarchy, Maslow proposes that humans have a need to know and understand – as coaches we can satisfy this need by being prepared to provide factual information regarding the change (e.g. Inform of case studies outlining the positive effects of successful change).
Self-actualisation
Self-actualisation is on top of Maslow’s Hierarchy and refers to an individuals’ need to fulfil their maximum potential. As a coach, I can help individuals and teams to do this by outlining what a successful transformation would look like and support them in visualising what success would mean for them.
Transcendence
A later addition to Maslow’s hierarchy, transcendence refers to our need to help others – as coaches, we can help satisfy this need by providing situations where team members help one another or others in the organisation, for example as part of a mentoring program, introducing “brown bag” sessions, sharing experiences with other teams in formal or informal forums, etc.
Increase dissatisfaction with the current state
Or maybe this header had better read “increase the awareness of dissatisfaction with the current state” – I’m not suggesting that a coach ought to make the current state so painful as to tip the scales in changes’ favour and more that as a coach I want to aim at “reducing the pain” for an individual or a team, and as part of that we need to pinpoint what exactly is hurting right now. It’s important here that it needs to be the team’s / individuals’ pain, not the organisational or departmental pain which may have driven the need for change in the first instance – I often found that while exposing individuals or teams to the wider need for change can make for a powerful objective argument, it almost always fails to address the subjective, emotional response to change and does very little to reduce the feelings of rejection and anxiety (in some individuals I have met over the years this has even introduced additional anxiety as they felt “part of the problem”).
A technique I found useful here is to run a very quick workshop with the team and ask them to brainstorm “things they enjoy about their work” and “stuff they wish they didn’t have to do” – I do actually use these rather casual phrasings as I find that it elicits more responses than something that infers more (objective) judgement (e.g. “What isn’t working well”). This identifies both starting points for the change (which we can use for “setting the first steps”) as well as (current) boundaries – if one of the things that an individual enjoys about their work is that they don’t have to work as part of a team then co-locating them with all other team members and forcing them to collaborate on every task they carry out is unlikely to be a successful strategy to introduce change.
Support a positive vision of the future
As humans, we’re pretty much hardwired to thrive for something that will incur a positive outcome rather than something that would be unpleasant – so events that are perceived to be unpleasant, the outcome needs to be perceived more positively than a combination of the current state and the effort required to change the current state.
Think of going to the dentist as an example – nobody enjoys going to the dentist and some of us are positively terrified of the dentist. The more terrified an individual is (i.e. the greater the effort required to change the current state), the greater the dissatisfaction with the current state (e.g. the toothache), the potential benefit (e.g. being pain-free) and the perceived potential of success (e.g. how likely is it that the appointment will remove the pain) have to be to make them dial for an appointment and actually show up on the day. Sometimes our resistance to change is so strong or deep-seated that it will override other factors – my own fear of the dentist means that I can develop an almost super-human tolerance to pain when it comes to toothaches. While I recognise that this is purely a psychological phenomenon, I also know that routinely and without fail, any toothache completely evaporates the moment I’ve decided to make an appointment with my dentist. The only thing that eventually makes me show up for my appointment is clinging on to a vision of a painless future and I’ve made a habit of visualising this several times a day leading up to any dental appointment.
As coaches, we need to make the vision and outcome personal to the individual and / or the team – and this means helping them to identify how the (imposed) change will benefit them and what success will look like. I find that visualisation is key – simply setting goals and posting them on a board / wall / document is often not powerful enough. By encouraging people to see and feel themselves succeeding we can tap into both the need of self-actualisation (as proposed by Maslow) as well as making use of the endowment effect. Once we have established the overarching vision of the future, as coaches we can then provide ongoing support by expecting success of coachees – according to theories such as the “Pygmalion effect” and the “Looking Glass Theory“, people’s self-perception is based on their perception of how they are perceived by others (i.e. metaperceptions), allowing the coach to encourage a positive mindset based on self-belief.
Setting the first steps
Now that you have lowered the resistance to change, increased awareness of the dissatisfaction with the current state and introduced a positive vision of the future, work with the individual or team to set the next steps for the future. Breaking overarching long-term goals down into smaller, achievable steps increases the perception of the potential for success, which will help to maintain motivation to implement the change. Personally I find ownership of these steps is important – the coachee needs to own the change and therefore also the steps required to implement it.
I quite like using the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition (you can see the full text onhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA084551 or a more accessible summary on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition) in a coaching context – allowing individuals to create their own examples for each stage (with some guidance as required) and getting them to self-assess their current proficiency encourages ownership of change, and at the same time provides a framework we can use to measure our own progress. If combined with the GROW model it can be a powerful tool to set direction and identify the next steps on the journey to change. Liz Koegh presented a great workshop at Agile 2013 on how to use the Dreyfus model in conjunction with the GROW model in a coaching context – you can find additional information about both models on http://lizkeogh.com/2009/08/13/building-experts-using-the-dreyfus-model/
Since the examples used to clarify each of the proficiency stages in the Dreyfus model are provided by the coachees, there is an increased sense of ownership as well as a desire to realise the change necessary to achieve these goals – in many ways the Dreyfus model encourages coachees to visualise the future (by providing examples of criteria for each stage) and themselves in a future state, tapping into the need for self-actualisation as proposed by Maslow and providing an angle for potential metaperceptions which in turn will influence individual self-perception.
Wrapping up
Throughout this (rather lengthy) post we’ve discussed how adding a variety of concepts and theories from behavioural economics, sociology and psychology to our coaching toolkit can help to swing the equation proposed in the Gleicher Formula in our favour and so increase the willingness to change. No two individuals or teams are the same and some coachees may require you as a coach to work on all factors involved while others may only require you to tackle one or two aspects – either way, I hope this post includes a few useful thoughts and ideas to bring back to the trenches!
Post by Michi Tyson