Motivating Humans To Create Successful, Sustainable Change

Industry reports and research show too many change projects don’t achieve expectations or they fail outright, employees are increasingly disengaged, and there is increasing dissatisfaction in general. This undermines our ability to build resilient organizations and communities. 

There are many reasons for change project failures and low engagement, but many of the contributing factors are related to overlooking the human needs in change. Organizations can only change as fast as the human systems do.

When we are planning change projects, we need to ensure we are planning to increase people’s willingness and ability to engage in change. We must leverage the power of humans. This means our planning must:

1. challenge what we are able and willing to 'see',
2. recognize humans explicitly throughout the process, and
3. recognize the difference between 'hygiene' factors and 'motivating' factors.

1. Challenging What We Are Able and Willing to 'See'

There have been many academic and industry calls made over the last few decades to rebalance our definitions and understanding of organizations, change and people. The current emphasis on quantitative or positivist approaches, must be augmented with qualitative or constructivist approaches.

• A positivist perspective is a belief that there is a single ‘truth’, and an emphasis on quantitative measurement. It is a linear and mechanistic approach that is useful for commercialization and somewhat predictable environments.
• A positivist-only perspective misses the nuances and complexities of innovation and environments that include complex human systems nested within other systems.
• To balance out a positivist perspective, we also need to adopt a constructivist approach. Constructivism recognizes that several people can share a single experience, but their perceptions and responses will differ based on their previous experiences, their personal characteristics, etc. Each person perceives a different reality.
• Constructivism is important for (exploration and experimentation) innovation and more complex situations, and requires an emphasis on qualitative measures.
• The balance of positivism and constructivism in academia is realism. In entrepreneurship the need to balance innovation and commercialization is called effectuation.

In the complex environments in which many of us are trying to create change and innovation, we need to use the appropriate balance of positivism and constructivism.

2. Recognizing Humans Explicitly in Planning

To understand processes of change, various models can help us understand the situations more comprehensively and develop a sense of how to approach the situation. For example, one interesting system change model shows an iterative approach including developing a joint purpose, forming self-organization teams to coordinate, collaborate and co-create the desired changes, delivering and monitoring changes, and adapting those approaches. This approach - and so many other planning approaches - lean towards a positivist / linear approach.

• Linear models are very useful, but they are insufficient on their own.
• Using only a single model gives us a single perspective.

To broaden our perspectives, we can add a model that challenges or expands on the other model(s) we are using. For example, in addition to the system change model, we can add a more constructivist perspective with The Behaviour Change Wheel created by Michie, van Stralen & West which puts humans front and centre. The model shows that various policies and interventions will influence whether humans have the opportunity, motivation and capability to engage in change initiatives such as:

• To help people understand why and how to change their behaviour (opportunity), environmental & social planning, communication and marketing policies can be enacted through education, persuasion and incentives.
• To motivate people to change their behaviour, legislative, services and regulation policies can be enacted through coercion, training and enablement.
• To enable people to change their behaviour (capability) fiscal measures and guidelines can be enacted through modelling, environmental restructuring and restrictions

Another way to include different perspectives in change initiatives is to ask for them. Since humans are an essential part of organizations and fundamental to change and innovation efforts, those humans (ie stakeholders) must be involved in the whole change process.

Almost every change initiative has been tried in some way before. And industry research shows change ‘fatigue’ (or more accurately change frustration and burnout) are significant factors in limiting people’s ability to engage in change and to trust the planned process.

Engaging stakeholders in the whole change process allows:

• the leveraging of past experience, different perspectives, and expertise, and
• building a collective foundation of knowledge, insights and competencies to collaborate and evolve (which results in team and organizational resilience and nimbleness).

3. Recognizing the Difference Between 'Hygiene' Factors and 'Motivation' Factors

Too often change and innovation initiatives are based on simplistic ‘carrots’ (eg financial incentives, ‘treats’, etc) and ‘sticks’ (eg withholding opportunities, withholding ‘treats’, threats of dismissal, etc). ‘Motivation’ is often seen as an external thing. However, extensive research in multiple fields and over two+ decades shows extrinsic motivation is important, but it isn’t motivational, and it can often have negative effects.

To help us frame how we engage people in change and innovation processes, we can use Herzberg’s Two-Factor model which differentiates between 'hygiene' and 'motivating' factors. 

Hygiene factors are factors that inhibit engagement if they are not provided. For example if people do not feel they are treated fairly (eg in planning, decision-making, compensation, etc) and safely (psychological safety, physical safety, etc), they will be unlikely to engage in a meaningful way.

Although fairness and safety are essential, they do not have a ‘motivating’ effect, and if they are used inappropriately, they can lead to disengagement. For example, extensive research shows that when financial or other external incentives exceed what is necessary for fairness and safety, the incentives can become demotivating, can result in misalignment with organizational goals, and can result in gaming the system, which undermines the organizational purpose.

In contrast, motivating factors are largely internal. Factors that increase engagement and proactive behaviour aligned with organizational purpose include providing opportunities for personal growth, learning, furthering interests, achievement, recognition, etc. Motivating factors can be better understood from the perspective of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge, Seligman’s authentic happiness, and Maslow’s belonging and self-actualization. For people to be ‘motivated’ to engage, create and build organizational purpose, they need:

• quality relationships
• meaningfulness / purpose, and
• joy (a lasting sense of fulfillment that is not impacted moment-to-moment).

SUCCESSFUL CHANGE INITIATIVES MUST PLAY TO THE STRENGTHS OF HUMANS 

The reason we need to explicitly include humans in the whole change process, and to differentiate between hygiene and motivating factors is because of our (human) nervous system and our physiological responses.

Human physiology is most often experienced as emotions - which are often seen as weaknesses. However, our physiological responses and signals are much more vast - and much more valuable.

• If hygiene factors are missing and we feel we are undervalued or treated unfairly, our nervous systems will interpret the situation as threatening, and we will become defensive. Our brains/conscious processes can override our physiological response for a while, but often at significant cost to our health (hence the high rates of absenteeism, turnover, etc in unsafe or unfair environments).
• If hygiene factors are sufficient and we feel we are safe and are being valued and treated fairly, our nervous systems will not generate a defensive response. However, it also won’t generate engagement.
• If our nervous system senses the situation is fair and safe (ie no threats), and that there is opportunity for growth, meaningfulness, relationships and joy, our nervous systems will open us up to engage in the collaborative process of creating change and innovation that is aligned with the organizational vision.
• If we have developed body-wisdom, we can leverage our physiological signals for powerful information, insight and intuition.

When we are planning change projects, as leaders we need to ensure we are planning to increase people’s willingness and ability to engage in change. This means we must:

1. Challenge how we see the situation and seek out many perspectives that allow us to see linear relationships, and also the nuanced and human relationships.
2. Use many models and approaches to ensure we are addressing not only mechanical processes, but also the people/human aspects of change and innovation. 
3. Ensure we are creating ‘hygenic’ environments (not disincentivising stakeholders) AND motivating environments (creating opportunity for growth, meaningfulness, relationships and joy). 

Creating a culture that truly motivates people to engage in collaboration is essential to creating successful change and innovation. Although it requires rethinking and relearning our approach to change and innovation, making the change can be extremely valuable and rewarding. Please message me if you’d like to explore how to make this happen.