You know this already…
We respond to change differently. There are lots of different categorisations, but we are usually described in groups a bit like this…
- Dangerous to know — The gung-ho mob, they will try anything. A bit like my idiot brother.
- Have a go — Once they see that the coast is clear, they are quick to pile in.
- Wait and see — Sensible and dependable, think of an accountant.
- If I must — Think of an accountant’s accountant.
- Kicking and screaming — Admit it, we have all been there.
My categories aren’t too scientific. You can find a more detailed (and politically correct) description of each group’s characteristics here or here, but no doubt you get the idea.
Here is something marginally more thought-provoking
The proportions of people in each group are often demonstrated like this:
Most of us sit in the middle, firmly on top of the fence. Which sort of makes sense, in a somewhat unscientific way, but this is still not new news.
And here is the thing that made me think
Earlier this week it was pointed out to me that the curve changes…
If you are trying to persuade people to do something that is desirable, like trying a new “never fails” diet… the shape of the curve (or maybe speed of adoption) moves upwards
If you are trying to persuade them to do something that is a somewhat more disagreeable, say Morris Dancing, the shape of the curve moves downwards.
But it’s not just desirability that influences people:
How about adding to the mix…
- Ease – is the change simple or complicated?
- Compatibility – does it match your lifestyle?
- Risk – can you test and learn from the experience without too much downside?
All of which will effect how quickly people change.
But maybe most importantly of all, how about awareness?
Is your platform really burning if nobody ever sees it?
If you enjoyed this post click here to have the next delivered straight to your inbox
Read another opinion
Image by Kevin Buehler
Hello James,
Look into this and you may find that the Piper Alpha platform was actually burning. And some people chose to dive off the platform and take their chances in the sea rather than be burned alive on the platform. This is not the case in business.
Take Tesco at the moment. There is no burning store, no burring logistics centre, no burning head office. It may be that the metaphorical chair that the CEO sits on may be ‘on fire’. It may be that the people who work in Tesco stores may also, metaphorically, speaking experience a burning platform. And these ‘burning platforms’ are unlikely to be the same. For the CEO the pressure is on to ‘turn the business around’ (another metaphor!) for the people in the store the pressure is to make a living without ‘working their fingers to their bone’ (metaphor). Or without the anxiety-fear of zero hours contracts. And therein lies the challenge. Each constituency experiences a different burning platform. Those who are smart-luck can simply walk calmly off the ‘burning platform’ by finding a job with another company. And that is exactly what happens. Capable smart-managers at a well known UK retail brand experiencing ‘unreasonable’ pressure on the basis of a burning platform felt by the Tops have left to work for other brands. Only those who cannot find alternative jobs, stay: demotivated.
All the best
maz
A tragic truth Maz, though I wonder how hard those who can’t find jobs are looking
James,
Interesting graphs. The thing that occurred to me is how ‘desirable’ and ‘disagreeable’ are subjective terms to the distribution will change depending on who you speak to and what about.
Adrian
Absolutely Adrian, one man’s meat…