Exploring in-group bias impacts on change management

This week, I am exploring in-group bias. In-group bias is a cognitive bias where we tend to favor individuals or groups we perceive as similar to ourselves. As I work across many large enterprises, this bias rears up frequently. I hear it expressed as;?

• "You should know that finance is going to be a pain. They are always..."?
• "Be careful when you talk to XYZ department; they tend to go rogue."
• "Don't tell them about ABC because it will trigger them to bring up X (a past unresolved issue, a past unmet need, a past requirement that has not been resolved)

Hearing words like these indicate a need for more decision-making diversity, which impacts my change management efforts as I work on a new client or project. When the project team makes statements like this, I must devote time and effort to building or rebuilding bridges with other groups within the organization.?

In the context of IT projects, such as transitions to the Microsoft 365 platform, in-group bias can manifest in several ways. Decision-makers may favor specific departments or individuals over others when allocating resources for the project. This can lead to a lack of buy-in from those who feel left out and ultimately derail the project. When we are trying to get buy-in from the business units, it is important to highlight what is in it for THEM, and that is harder to do when there is an undercurrent that this change is being done to them, not to them. This can bring up another common bias: solution aversion. "Put simply, it means that if we don't like a proposed solution to a problem, we use motivated reasoning to deny that the problem exists in the first place." -?Dan Ariely?in his book 'Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things.' If users don't like the solution as planned by IT, they will deny that there is a need for the project.?

It may seem that there is a lot going on here, right? We have an?in-group bias?that triggers?solution aversion?and then?motivated reasoning?- all coming together to build mental blockers to advancing a project. My approach to these dynamics with cross-functional teams that are working on changes that impact thousands of employees is to lead with empathy - special thanks to?Rob Volpe?for being an empathy champion and sharing his work in 'Tell Me More About That: Solving the Empathy Crisis One Conversation at a Time.'

Fostering a culture of inclusion and diversity is essential to mitigate the adverse effects of in-group bias. That is so easy to say and much harder to practice. You must dedicate mental energy and time to actively seeking diverse opinions and perspectives and ensuring that decision-making processes are transparent and inclusive. When I am starting a new project/client, we always have an ethnographic understanding starting right after our kick-off. In my world of large IT changes, a client team rarely has experience with the value of ethnographic research; that is OK. We can use another term, like user interviews. Two objectives must be achieved, one is to understand the community of users and how this coming change will impact them. The second is to show the IT team how leading with empathy, showing the user community that we truly care for them, can increase adoption, help identify any blockers or issues, and make the transition better for all involved. As Austin Kleon says, "If you want to be accepted by a community, you have to first be a good citizen of that community" -Show Your Work.?

As OCM professionals, we are responsible for recognizing and addressing the impact of in-group bias on change management efforts, and it is our responsibility to help our clients through all the dynamics and biases that come into play when we are leading change.?