Inertia

A few years ago, I read a series of business books by the researcher, author, and management consultant Jim Collins, starting with the first book Built to Last  which explored what factors led organizations to be "enduringly great" (in other words, organizations that were at the top of their industry for seemingly forever).  The book was based upon a fairly simple research strategy.  Collins and his team identified 18 so-called visionary companies (which included, 3M, Boeing, Ford, Disney, and General Electric) and compared each one to a similar company that didn't perform as well.  The book introduced a number of important concepts and ideas that seemed to be consistent in the companies that were "built to last", including the BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goals) and the "Tyranny of Or" versus the "Genius of And".  Most importantly, these visionary companies adhered strictly to their core values and purpose, while always focusing on continuous improvement, innovation, and progress.  In other words, these organizations weren't afraid of change.

I talked briefly about the concept of "power" in my last post, extending the definition from classical physicis and applying it to organizational leadership.  Today, I want to talk about another concept from classical physics, namely inertia.  The concept of inertia comes directly from Sir Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion, which states, "An object in motion stays in motion.  An object at rest stays at rest."  In order for an object at rest to become an object in motion, we have to apply some external force to overcome inertia, the resistance of an object to a change in its velocity (in this case, changing the velocity from zero).  Similarly, in order for an object in motion to become an object at rest, we have to again apply some external force to overcome the inertia that keeps the object in motion.  Inertia, simply stated, is the resistance to change.

Organizations are subject to inertia too.  Several years ago, Donald Sull wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review ("Why Good Companies Go Bad"), in which he defined active inertia.  He wrote, "Active inertia is an organization's tendency to follow established patterns of behavior - even in response to dramatic environmental shifts.  Stuck in the modes of thinking and working that brought them success in the past, market leaders simply accelerate all their tried-and-true activities."  In other words, they fail to adapt to changes in their environment - they fail to change with the times.  They fail to recognize that "what got us here, won't get us there."  Active inertia is "a rigid devotion to the status quo."  It's as if these companies need an "organizational enema"!

So how can we deal effectively with active inertia?  What is the best way to administer an organizational enema?  Bill Taylor recently suggested two time-honored techniques in a blog post for the Harvard Business Review entitled "Persuading Your Team to Embrace Change".  I actually first came across these two techniques and wrote a blog post about them several years ago.  

The first technique is called the "foot in the door technique", which is based upon a landmark study published in the late 1960's.   Simply stated, the best way to get people to change something big is to first ask them to change something small.  The title of the landmark study ("compliance without pressure") gives a hint for why this technique works.  A team of psychologists in the original study telephoned women at home in California and asked them if they would answer a few simple questions about some of the household products that they used.  Three days later, the psychologists called them again and asked if they could send a group of five or six men to go through their home and find out which household products that they used.  The women were significantly more likely to agree to the second (and more intrusive) request if they had agreed to the first one.  So, when it comes to making big, transformative changes in an organization that desperately needs to change, start with small changes first!  Once individuals agree with the small changes, they will be more likely to agree to the bigger ones.

The second, related technique is called the "door in the face technique", again based upon a landmark study published in the 1970's.  Again, the title of the study is instructive ("reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance").  Here, the order of the request is flipped.  Again, a team of psychologists asked people to volunteer to counsel troubled youth in juvenile detention for 2 hours per week.  Next they were asked to chaperone these same youth on a one-day trip to the local zoo.  Individuals who refused the first request were significantly more likely to agree to the second one.  The psychologists suggested that guilt for refusing to agree to the first request led individuals to agree to the second.  Taylor suggests that the "door in the face technique" is at play when leaders and managers set so-called stretch goals (or to use Collins' term above, BHAGs).  By setting the standard so high that people feel like it will be impossible to achieve them, they may be more motivated to accept lower, but still hard to achieve standards.  He talks about legendary Green Bay Packers football coach, Vince Lombardi, who had incredibly high expectations for his players.  When his players asked why he had such high expectations for them, Lombardi replied, "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

Managing change is a critical skill for leaders - some would say it is the most important one.  If they want to be "built to last", organizations need to overcome active inertia ("The way we've always done things around here"), otherwise they will be among the "mighty that fall".  Albert Einstein once said, "Nothing happens until something moves."  By using the "foot in the door" and "door in the face" techniques, leaders can make sure that their organization keeps moving.