Despite its many positive aspects, digital transformation is a cost, an experience of loss and a lack of comfort (especially one that is already a belated necessity rather than a choice for an organization). In the reality of a stiffened corporation, it can be seen as an admission of error - which it never is. It is a decision to jump - at the moment we fear it most.
To cushion the jump, it is necessary to understand the human and systemic fears, and then prepare the organization for such a big change that only people who won’t adapt to change and processes that are a burden to the organization with no legitimate value, most often processes with a patch of “we’ve always done it this way”, “we’ve always done it that way” will not survive. These are the blockers of change.
This text is for you, HR. Let’s work together.
Will I be fired?
Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of an experienced employee, on whom the specter of digital transformation “falls from above”, because he is not part of it in its initial phase (when the right competencies are needed, not produced in the organization).
Given the degree of misunderstanding of the coming change (and the conditions that may hinder it) and the uncertainty of tomorrow, the natural reaction is to brace up and reject, from denial to aggressive actions and cannibalizing the transformation.
These are natural actions and their causes, to which the organization is usually blind, must be taken care of - for we most often experience their effects and it is to them that we react, resulting in ad hoc actions or those aimed at something else, just not at the source of the phenomenon.
Below is the sum total of all corporate fears.
Fear of the unknown
Anxiety about change is a natural defense mechanism because our brain seeks predictability and control (Festinger’s Uncertainty Reduction Theory). This gives rise to many shades of anxiety among employees in the face of change they cannot control.
The consequences of not taking care of these phenomena already depend directly on the character and disposition of the person and the position he holds. The higher up in the hierarchy - the more ignoring it is devastating to the entire organization.
The cure? Transparency in communicating change. This also means communicating the risks and impacts that may negatively affect the positions in question, right down to plans to eliminate them and the resulting job cuts (one aspect of the transformation should be to increase efficiency in this area as well, though not necessarily company-wide). This can introduce additional discomfort, but it is the lack of such difficult communication that is more costly in the medium and long term.
Accompany the employee in a situation of this anxiety, communicate (overtly, in direct language) the gradualness of the implementation of the new technologies, provide support for adaptation (especially when we see great potential for this - and it lies most often in the person’s mind, not in his current skills) - and accept that he may have his own plan for this - and change jobs before the transformation reaches his position.
Status threat theory / Integrated threat theory
The longer the length of service, the more strongly people identify with their work role (except in situations of disconnection in bullying environments and other situations that support displacement to meet current life needs; attitudes toward work also change from the perspective of new generations).
Fear of losing one’s job is a decrease in motivation (often drastic) and, above all, stress (cf. Social Identity Theory, Tajfel and Turner), which is most often not taken care of from the perspective of large organizations, as it is not a non-issue of perception and interest in internal business processes.
Aside from reskilling and upskilling programs (which sometimes only pretend to be such), I think it is most helpful to create new career paths within the company together with at-risk employees (even if they were only to be listeners at first - this comfort should be allowed), and then let at least some of them sit empty for a few/some months.
It takes sincerity and courage to build an employee’s authentic perception:
look, that’s how we’re going to change and that’s where we’ll be waiting for you; we’re not hiring anyone right now for this place because:
it’s not needed now, because the tools won’t be implemented there for a long time;
we see it as an opportunity for those currently employed.
Transformation may not be an unknown enemy.
A sense of lack of competence
The Kruger-Dunning Effect and Self-Efficacy Theory, Ladies and Gentlemen. When digital transformation is perceived as a new and complicated task (surprise: it’s always perceived that way when it’s really happening), the natural tendency is to rate one’s competence lower than its actual state.
The most stereotypical (sorry for that) example is thinking that I’m too old to learn new technologies, and younger people will be more effective.
And guess what? I’ve seen people 20+ who after 2-3 years are “milled” by corporations and manifest all the symptoms of disengagement (as a defense mechanism against further stages of professional burnout), who are very difficult to help.
And next to them are people with more than 25 years of experience in one organization, who still want - although this want is often manifested in frustration, disagreement with the current state of affairs and… spilling solutions like from a sleeve.
It is minds that need to be taken care of in this area. It’s not about training, but primarily about implementing at least some mentoring models - and snatching the most promising individuals into the vortex of transformation.
Let me assure you: large organizations are full of such people, although most often off the radar of corporate procedures or in the wrong positions.
Information overload and technostress
When you’ve been working above and beyond your full-time job and giving more than 80-100% of yourself for years in a well-established pattern (which the company taught you and for which you get paid), and a wave of change is rising around you (including some whose effects are hard to predict even from the perspective of the teams responsible for the transformation - hello again, AI), it’s natural to feel overwhelmed by the number of new tools, systems, procedures or more generally: incentives - for which, in addition, you still don’t physically have time.
The result? Further stress and fatigue, according to Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory.
Transformation should mean simplification: of interfaces, of processes. It should kill feature creep tendencies in the bud. Of course, that, among other things, will result in the introduction of tools whose operation is difficult to comprehend - but its effect should be simple and create in the employee’s mind a perception of “it just works.”
When this succeeds, confidence in the transformation will grow naturally and the organization will get more organic ambassadors than it had planned to train itself.
Hawthorne effect & allowing the mistakes
We are talking about the fear of being judged and losing social status. We are afraid that we will be judged negatively if we do not keep up with changes (cf. Social Anxiety Theory, Leary). In the reality of the corporation, the main aspect to be considered here is that of internal community and internal status, strictly connected to the hierarchy in the organization.
The lower an employee is in the job ladder, the less he or she will harm the organization in making changes and the easier it is not to worry about him or her, because “at most he or she will leave.” (sic!) This happens every day, even though the cost of recruiting and onboarding usually exceeds the retention of an employee who already knows the company’s know-how.
The higher up the ladder, the easier it is to jeopardize the transition process, to the point of trying to block them altogether, when we’re talking about C- and D-level employees, for example.
That’s why it’s so important that an Ops-type initiative aimed at a thorough digital transformation be directly under the board of directors, and preferably under the CEO (one point of contact, decision and reporting). One aspect of it (with support from the relevant departments in the organization) should be to create a culture of learning from mistakes and promoting real collaboration (instead of smiles and warm words on the calls) instead of competition and becoming rigid in the current structure, or more broadly, in silos.
Allowing people to learn from their mistakes is a feedback tool for transformation
Sincere feedback and encouragement to try again instead of reprimanding or firing for mistakes motivates even the most skeptical employees to work more engaged (these will join the transformation later when they see from a safe distance that others have not been harmed).
Disconnecting an employee from the results of his work (criticism of the work, not the artist) helps accelerate change, because he becomes more discerning and more willing to judge his actions harshly when he sees that the organization sees value in and supports the transformation process.
Encouraging employees to spot errors or omissions in transformation processes and tools allows out of the box thinking to be drawn from internal corporate resources.
Detecting real gaps or errors in the transformation process (the earlier, the better - because less costly) in partnership with employees helps protect the business from one of the most difficult experiences (both from an image/PR perspective, financial losses and the cost of remediation at too late a stage) for large organizations: the moment when these errors are discovered by the customer.
Lack of a sense of control
If a transformation (even one that is necessary, delayed and implemented with a road roller) is communicated as changes “imposed from above” - people will put up resistance as a result of feeling powerless.
Involve employees and show (realistically - I’ll add it every time when I mean large organizations) that they can influence their environment and decisions (Decision Autonomy Theory, Ryan and Deci).
Evangelize about change: hold workshops, inspirational sessions, collect feedback if only in the form of anonymous surveys (and make sure they really are anonymous).
Nurture open communication, because an employee’s sense of influence over his or her environment can also mean being able to voice his or her concerns - and not losing his or her job afterwards. It’s ok for employees to be unhappy, as long as they don’t sabotage the transformation itself, but draw attention to aspects that the organization may have overlooked.
Organizational Identity Theory
Attachment to the work environment and job role (even if based on the canvass of the Stockholm syndrome) builds an image of the “self” in the organization, or the “self at work.” Digital transformation can turn the tables on this, resulting in a “loss of self” in the new reality. How many corporations are paying attention to this downright psychoanalytic aspect of change? Don’t answer, let’s keep silent about the actual number of them.
Alienation in a workplace that is beginning to change (and we are often talking about fundamental and very rapid changes) can be addressed by helping to build a new identity, nomem omen - a digital one. It’s introducing tools such as storytelling or celebrating small successes (I’m still looking at you, corporations) to allow even the most timid employees to adapt to the new organizational culture.
I know this is easy to write and maybe some of these things are obvious, but the truth is that taking care of them is not the hardest thing at all.
The hardest thing is to open the eyes of the organization to see these problems (to hell with calling them challenges) and to see that the solutions are often in the very people who are experiencing these problems.
In the next episode, we’ll try to prepare the business for the start of the transformation. Or the importance of knowing the basics of software development process. I haven’t decided yet.