OntoreBangladesh

What to Do About Performance Troublemakers
by Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D.

The concept was great. The business case was sound. The new system would save
time, energy and costs. It would increase performance consistency and eliminate
performer and manager frustrations. It had everything going for it.

Why didn’t it work? Why did the very people whose lives it was intended to make
easier fail to jump on-board? The answer lies in three little words that have
dramatic performance impact: “novelty,” “complexity” and “abstractness.”

Novelty

We like new things. We try out new recipes and restaurants, buy new clothes and
change our cars fairly regularly. Curiosity often motivates us, but in all these
instances, we make choices. The novelties we choose don’t appear to threaten or
disrupt our lives. We embrace change that enhances, does not demand excessive or
unfamiliar effort and appears easy to integrate into our current behavior
patterns.

We reflexively reject novelty perceived as problematic or burdensome, especially
when introduced during stressful periods. In these instances, novelty tends to
trigger negative reactions of avoidance and resistance. Further, we are
hardwired to revert to familiar routines and patterns of conduct when stressed.

Neophobia – fear of novelty – manifests itself in the workplace when change is
seen as a threat in an already high-pressure environment. The result is often
millions of dollars wasted on organizational change efforts – even when they
offer benefits to performers – and delay tactics or outright sabotage can occur.

What to do? Some research evidence – such as John Hajdukiewicz and Kim Vicente’s
2002 study, “Designing for Adaptation to Novelty and Change” – suggests
deliberately designing simple, user-centered elements into the novelty reduces
adaptation resistance. As in the normal process for selecting what we invite
into our lives – a new TV, different food, a novel hairdo or exotic vacation -
we must feel we are in charge. Novelty introduced so performers feel a strong
sense of control significantly increases the probability of acceptance and
desired performance.

Complexity

The more complex a requirement to perform is perceived, the more poorly people
perform. The key is the word “perceived.” As Guy Boy explains in the 2007 report
“Perceived Complexity and Cognitive Stability in Human-Centered Design,”
perception of complexity is our determination of the gulf between what we
believe we can do and what is being asked of us. This affects our need for
“cognitive stability,” the desire for simplicity and controlability: “what I
know I can handle.”

Perceived complexity leads to cognitive instability, resulting in reduced
performance. One can overcome this by reducing the perception of complexity. A
system, procedure or machine may be internally complex, but if well-designed,
its complexities are hidden, and the experience is made easy for the user. The
result is increased cognitive stability and vastly improved performance. Google
is a familiar example of simplified complexity and successful performance, with
virtually no coaching needed for hundreds of millions of users.

Abstractness

“Abstractness” refers to dissociation from the concrete and, for employees, a
lack of connection with their experiences and realities. For example, the
introduction of new systems able to integrate diverse databases or processes to
improve cash-flow management – while important for the organization – may be
meaningless to employees asked to perform differently.

Customer relationship management systems or Six Sigma quality remain intangible
for the jeans store salesperson or locomotive maintenance worker. If something
is ill-understood, performance change is unlikely to occur.

Use well-constructed analogies to decrease the level of abstractness. One of the
best is the desktop metaphor for handling data in the graphical user interface
environment. Clear, meaningful and concrete examples are necessary. Where
practice and feedback are demonstrated, comprehensible results follow. You must
drive away all traces of ambiguity to build solid, concrete meaning for the
desired change.

Individually, novelty, complexity and abstractness are performance killers.
Together, they are even more troublesome. As performance professionals, we can
watch for these as new initiatives come along. We can then intervene, making the
novel familiar, the complex simpler and the abstract concrete and real for
performers.

[About the Author: Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D., CPT is a principal of HSA
Learning & Performance Solutions LLC and is emeritus professor of instructional
and performance technology at the Universite de Montreal.]

Regards,
Harvinder

http://harvinderjit.multiply.com