Resistance to change or fear of change, a brake on technological innovation.

Resistance to change is often underestimated and is a real brake on any technological evolution. When it comes to treasury, the department most equipped with IT solutions, the issue is even more vital. Change is generally manageable, yet it is overlooked when it comes to digital transformations or simple changes in IT tools. This culpable neglect can lead to difficulties, under-performance, and loss of productivity. How many projects have failed to achieve their full potential due to a lack of preparation for change? It's precisely because we don't want to touch what we believe in that we're often forced to change what we do! In our opinion, it's a good idea to take a philosophical approach to change for a change. So, today, let's look at change and its various forms.

Resistance to change, a human tendency but an obstacle to innovation

Treasurers are often conservative and cautious by nature. But when it comes to technological change, many are the first to complain about their IT tools but resist any innovative proposal for fear of the impact on their job, or of having to adapt to new processes, or of the launch problems inherent in any change. The most important thing in a technological innovation project is to "sell" it internally and get users to accept what the change will entail. We only ever see the technical and financial aspects, forgetting the crucial psychological ones. What prejudices do we often have to face? Let's address them...

It's not possible not to change.

Change is inevitable, and statements like "it's not what it used to be" or "it's never going to change" are pointless. The former is a tautology, i.e., always true, and the latter a contradiction, i.e., always false. Change is necessary, and in every treasurer this statement is accepted. On the other hand, even if we know we should change, it's not for the cause that we change. To use an analogy, it's like quitting smoking: it's not because you want to or know you should quit that you do. Change is a cure for a problem that requires the willingness to accept the need to change and the acceptance of the remedy to be applied, in this case the new technology.

All change implies that some things don't change.

100% change is impossible, of course. Change always coexists with a form of permanence. Statements like "it changes everything" or "this changes nothing" are therefore equally useless, as they are necessarily false. When a new model or version of TMS is released, it is presented and described as being "the same but better". But if it's better, it's necessarily different, or at least not the same. Technical innovation means change with continuity, even if it's the perfect opportunity to revisit processes from top to bottom and improve internal controls.

A priori, the treasurer doesn't like change.

As far back as 1515, Prince Machiavelli rightly asserted in "Prince" that "nothing is more difficult than to change the order of things". Today, it seems that the only people who like change are wet babies. Yet there are often good reasons to change. If cigarettes didn't exist and someone (to use the same analogy as before) wanted to manufacture and invent them, they wouldn't have the necessary authorizations to market them. Radical change is not the objective. On the other hand, explaining the reasons for change is important, and here again often overlooked, as if it were self-evident.

To observe change, the treasurer should choose a fixed point.

To perceive the speed of a fast-moving truck, you don't have to be in another truck on the same highway. No, you must be sitting in a chair on the side of the road. Only then can you really understand what a fast-moving truck is like... So having a working TMS is not the best situation for understanding the benefits of a new solution. The fixed point provides the objectivity needed to justify any change.

It's easier to put words to what's changed.

Let's stay with our analogies and take the example of familiar everyday objects, such as the IKEA catalog, the Rolling Stones (new album recently released), the mini-Cooper, the Barbie stern (the world has recently turned pink) or even Twitter or Facebook on which you regularly post comments... These objects may have nothing to do with each other or with the treasury, but what they have in common is a certain age and an existence of several years or even decades. Many things have changed and are changing even faster today. For example, the Barbie doll comes in black, the mini weighs twice as much as its predecessor, the IKEA catalog is only available online, Charlie Watts has sadly disappeared, and FB or Twitter are now called META and X. It's not hard to describe what's changed; yet how have these familiar objects remained the same? It's a question you must ask yourself. Change for change's sake doesn't make sense unless it's accompanied and explained.

Change has its imposed and free figures.

In skating, we would speak of imposed figures and free figures. A picture speaks louder than a thousand words, to paraphrase Napoleon. Sometimes we must decide not to change things, like the values we defend. And it's precisely because we don't want to touch what we believe in that we're often forced to change what we do. Coke has been red since its inception, and BIC crystal is still the same in terms of aesthetic form. The latter has undergone a rare innovation with a hole dug in the tip of the cap for safety reasons in the event of ingestion and to avoid any risk of asphyxiation. The same, but better... You must find the right balance between the two types of stylistic figures. This is obviously not easy to achieve.

It's better to lead change than to undergo it.

The question is no longer whether to change, for example, the MSD. The question is whether we want to lead change or undergo it. Are we up for a "Eureka" or do we prefer a "Caramba"? Those who choose option one should ponder the words of the philosopher Bacon, who said "we must obey the forces we wish to command".? Franz Kafka said: "In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world". We mustn't wait for change to be imposed, forced, or suffered. Changing TMS will become vital. And likewise, if the TMS solution has flaws, let's change it or add add-ons to do what it won't do. For example, if we add a CMA (Currency Management Automation) solution or an artifice to manage raw materials, we've decided not to undergo the changes or die dissatisfied. Instead of complaining about the inadequacy of a tool, let's see how we can change or improve it. Let's not be afraid of adding options to the car to make it more efficient and safer, shall we?

There are two types of change.

You can change things or change the way you perceive things. But one is possible without the other, and the other is possible without the one. Installing wind turbines everywhere doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with a feeling of energy scarcity, and conversely, you can accept climate change as a major challenge without changing the way you consume. The two are not incompatible. The Copernican revolution had no impact on the solar system, which today is exactly as it was before Copernicus. But the Polish bishop taught us to look differently. A change in perception is necessarily a rupture, but, in reality, a change is sometimes very slow, even invisible to the naked eye. You can't see that hair is growing, but you can see when it has grown. I think we need to change things sometimes, and if necessary, accompany this change with a change in our perception of them. It's a more complex job, but a useful one.

To change is to change twice.

A treasurer who is always late will only become someone who is always on time for appointments if he changes his organization, and what he thinks about accuracy. In other words, it will only work if he changes the reality of his schedule and his perception of the importance of better managing his limited time. A simple reduction in the number of meetings on his agenda won't be enough, if it isn't accompanied by a real pleasure at finally being on time. It's a mental change too, and not just a mechanical one. When two companies, A and B, merge, the merger will only be a success if the reality changes, with a single consolidated balance sheet, a single IT infrastructure, etc., but above all if all the people involved share the same strategic vision of the new company. In short, the merger will be a success when only C is spoken of, and when it is no longer said who is ex-A or ex-B. These examples show that to change is to change twice. Only the change in perception makes the change possible, and even more irreversible. Many people are in favor of the train so that there are fewer people on the freeway they use every day. So, change is more than just a mechanical or physical act; it involves a change of mind and perception.

The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

To make an analogy with the automotive industry, let's think of Renault, which is renowned for its innovation: the 4L, the Twingo, the Dauphine, the Espace, the Scenic, the Zoe, etc. Mia the more the manufacturer invents new concepts, the more it becomes rigid and muscular in the same posture, that of being a car manufacturer. The more Renaut changes its cars, the less Renault changes its "car". Change and innovation can characterize a treasury team, while at the same time reinforcing its role as a treasury-type. Change is necessary, but often misunderstood, difficult to accept or irritating (despite criticism of existing systems or processes, which is paradoxical, I'm sure you'll agree). We wouldn't say that nobody likes change. But some are more prepared and ready for it than others. You must take care of the soil on which you intend to sow a new plant to ensure its maturation and convince people of its benefits. A complicated task even for the most philosophical treasurers. Change requires mental as well as technical preparation, and this is all too often forgotten. Yet it's one of the major reasons why projects fail. The success of a cash-flow IT project therefore depends on the psychology and mental preparation required to guarantee the success and use of the tool. Nothing would be worse than sabotaging a project or not using a tool for the wrong reasons.

Fran?ois Masquelier, CEO of Simply Treasury.

(inspired from an article of Luc de Brabandere, philosopher)

Disclaimer: This article was prepared by Fran?ois Masquelier in his personal capacity. The opinion expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the European Association of Corporate Treasurers (i.e., EACT).