Talent Management - October 2008 - (Page 10)

[human performance] by Harold D. Stolovich, Ph.D., CPT T T Novelty What to Do About Performance Troublemakers he 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.” ments 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 ployees, 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 illunderstood, 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 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 ele- Novelty, complexity and abstractness are performance killers. believe we can do and what is being asked of us. This affects our need for “cognitive stability,” the desire for simplicity and controllability: “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 em- About the Author Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D., CPT, is a principal of HSA Learning & Performance Solutions LLC and is an emeritus professor of instructional and performance technology at the Université de Montréal. He can be reached at editor@talentmgt.com. 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. 10 October 2008 talent management magazine www.talentmgt.com http://www.talentmgt.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Talent Management - October 2008

Talent Management - October 2008 Editor’s Letter Contents Human Performance Leading Edge Foundations The Three Pillars of Executive On-Boarding Role-Based Assessment: Thinking Inside the Box Who's Going to Speak Up for Health Care? Obey the Push to Automate Managing the Star Performer No One Wants to Work With Adopting a Mutual-Funds Model for Talent Management Hewlett-Packard: Simple Talent Management in a Technical World Team Effort Pays in Talent at London Business School The Employee Survey: What’s in It for Me? Why Most Managers Are Stuck Advertisers’ Index Editorial Resources Full Potential

Talent Management - October 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.