For his parent, the transition to middle school wasn't everything it was cracked up to be. It wasn't the school itself, but the adjustments that she and her partner had to make for it. She explained that, because of work and other obligations, it had become extremely difficult to take and pick up her son from school. Part of the problem was that she and her partner had another, much younger child that attended a different school. They couldn't manage both school schedules and their respective work commitments. It was too much. A private bus was too expensive. Neighbors couldn't help. Public transportation was the best option, but it meant that he would have to take it on his own, something they didn't believe he was prepared to do as yet.
At this point she sighed and explained what their eventual solution was. They got the oldest his first cell phone. With this, and a lot of coaching, they started allowing him to come home by himself using the public bus system. For the parents, this meant that they didn't have to twist themselves into knots trying to get to school by dismissal time. For their son, this was the first step to (imagine a super excited 11 year old as you read the below words)...
FREEDOM! YES!!
For all intents and purposes, it seemed like a reasonable step. It's not surprising to see kids even younger than her son with cell phones. They even found one through a service designed for parents. With it they could control the phones settings, blocking access to features (e.g., social networking sites, sending pictures--no Snapchat!) so as to reduce the risk of abuse. And he was a fairly responsible kid, as much as kids that age are. So why the long face, I asked?
The problem was, she explained, wasn't in what was gained (a few less headaches for her and her partner, a coveted symbol of emerging young adulthood for the son) but what was lost. They lived in a close knit neighborhood. People knew each other and their kids. They watched over each other and kept people safe. But they chose a school that most of the neighborhood kids are not attending. This, along with other shifts in the community, meant that they couldn't rely on their neighbors to help them as they had in the past.
She was lamenting the fact that it had to come to this, the buying of a piece of tech to compensate for the fact that she couldn't rely on her human network--her neighbors, her community--to help her son transition into the next stage of his life. In the past she could trust that those around her would not only correct his behavior when necessary but provide more appropriate models. Now she had to trust that he could do it on his own, resisting the peer pressure that was sure to come. The phone could not replace what she believed what was more important to her son at this stage of his development, which was learning how to navigate through the world on his own in a safe, responsible manner. The phone served as a way to alleviate the parents fears, not teach him how to be a grown up. A phone can't teach ethics.
I can understand her anxiety, although from a different perspective. My experiences in the workplace have shown me how technology can be perceived as a magical solution, yet falls short because the human element isn't properly accounted for.
Do any of these scenarios sound familiar?
- An organization recognizes the need to purchase/implement/upgrade it's software in a key business area. So it goes ahead an does it. But there are gaps between the software's anticipated and actual performance. For example, the new process workflow doesn't match up closely enough with the existing one, which causes confusion. Or the user guide isn't clear enough to explain how to troubleshoot issues that may occur. Instead of feeling as if this will make work easier, end user(s) perceive the change to be another item on their long list of things to do. Their reaction ranges from frustrated to down right pissed.
- You have a "Go-To" employee at your company, where this person's primary job seems to be to find answers to whatever questions other co-workers may have. This person's a living version of Wikipedia, crossed with McGyver, and then some. He/she knows exactly where a particular piece of data is located in which system. They know the organizational "hacks" (everything from optimizing an Excel spreadsheet to extracting files from an unsupported database) that will allow you to do your job more effectively. The company then goes through a transformation (e.g., system upgrade which eliminates many or all of a person's existing job responsibilities) and he/she is let go, or worse, placed in a role they're not properly suited for. Either way, they leave shortly after the change and so does all of their unique organizational knowledge.
- Learning and development initiatives were once delivered in a classroom or similar face-to-face setting, where a facilitator worked with the trainees to ensure effective transfer (of knowledge, skills, etc). Then a new self-service model was implemented. This meant greater flexibility in certain respects (courses could be delivered at almost anytime or anywhere) but it didn't take into account the fact that people process and assimilate information differently. With no one to take employee's different learning styles into account, adoption and use remains low in spite the time, energy, and money poured into it.
In the three examples the organization did what it believed was best to enhance employee performance. It wasn't necessarily the wrong decision. What wasn't taken into account was the extent that a change would have on those it was supposed to help. It didn't take into account, for example, the day to day reality of the end users (as shown in the first bullet point). It failed to account for the fact that how leadership perceived things getting done was inconsistent with how things actually got done (as exemplified in the second bullet point). It didn't factor in that no two persons are the same, so systems have to somehow be able to take that into account and be adaptable (bullet point three).
They believed that the technology would make it better for everyone immediately. This is how it works for people as a consumer. You recognize that you have a need of a cell phone. You purchase one and begin to use it. Part of the reason most people don't need an instruction manual to operate a cell phone is that its designers have made it as easy as possible to use. This is why Iphones (and Apple products in general) are so popular. They're made so that you can take one of its products out the box, turn them on, and immediately begin to use.
In an organizational setting that method shouldn't apply. Enterprise level system changes, whether to hardware, software, or both, are rarely designed to be taken "out the box" and used immediately like a cell phone. There are specific business processes attached to it that goes beyond a particular individual. Also, people's reaction to change falls on a spectrum. Tools can't understand that; it's up to leaders to anticipate, plan, and implement?change management processes?that will help stakeholders in this transition. Without?them, it can result in user adoption issues, increased costs, and lack of improvement in productivity.
Fortunately, my friend's son is doing okay. Except for losing it on one occasion and dropping it it a puddle on another, he's been quite responsible with his phone as well as his new found freedom. His parents are using this as a way to teach him about responsibility, safety (both online and off), and finance (he had to pay for the phone that was lost). And they discovered a new community--the parents, teachers, and administration of their son's middle school--which are helping him be a better person. It's a work in progress, stepping outside of their initial comfort zone and co-creating a new one that's suitable for the task of developing their son to be a responsible, intelligent, and empowered human being.
They've learned that technology is just a tool, one that can make things better or worse. It cannot manage change for you. As with most things, it comes down to people. For organizations and business leaders, the right change management processes can mean less headaches, more...
FREEDOM! YES!!
Source: http://www.victoriomilian.com/2013/01/freedom-yes-change-management-lessons.html
benjamin netanyahu storm shelters nick lachey chevy volt christina hendricks lifelock camp david
No comments:
Post a Comment