One of the most salient considerations at this stage in the process is how to quantify the potential risks and benefits of the proposed innovation. Therefore, the topic of the cost justification is critical. This issue is frequently unmentioned in research and teaching in this area. This may be because these issues are considered the domain of accountants and financiers and not managers, or because these cost justification issues have generally not been very well understood or explored. It is a major mistake for change managers not to be exposed to several of the critical issues:
[See related information on Securing resources ; Confirmation; and Reward systems and performance indicators]
For more information on this topic see:
Decision-Making
The decision stage of the innovation process
occurs when individuals and groups make a choice to adopt and make full use of an
innovation or to reject the innovation. In order for you to manage this stage of the
implementation process, you must be aware of two types of decision-making methods:
Commitment,
compliance, resistance
Commitment is a complex personal process.
Personal commitment is the situation in which I am committed to a course of action, or to
a decision, because I have given my word. In this case, the motivating factors are our
personal and social considerations tied to our self-image as reliable individuals who meet
our obligations. This is distinct from the concept of organisational commitment conceived
in terms of attachment to and involvement in an organisation. An individual is committed
when they are bound by their words and/or acts. As the implementer of innovation and
technical change, this is the outcome toward which you are working. In this way, attitudes
and behaviours form a self-reinforcing pattern. We said we would go along with these
changes. We know it is difficult, but we said we would do it and we will.
In the case of compliance, employees behave correctly by obeying directives and conforming to rules, procedures and objectives. They do not, however, become committed to the decision. Compliant individuals often seek and identify faults. They do not, however, take the initiative and responsibility for correcting the problem.
The least desirable non-commitment alternative is resistance. In this case, people completely withdraw (i.e., absenteeism or leaving the firm or department) or covertly try to resist the changes (e.g., sabotage, work stoppage or slow-down).
Stimulating
commitment
Research evidence illustrates that an
individual's commitment to an idea or behaviour can actually be increased if they have to
argue publicly in favour of the idea or behaviour. For example, taking on a spokes-person
role and speaking in favour of the implementation and its benefits, is a particularly
effective mechanism for instilling commitment to the project.
We find at least three characteristics of behaviour bind an individual in this sense: visibility, irrevocability, and volitionality. If our words and deeds are public and observable, we will more likely be bound by them as we know that others have been witness to them (i.e., visibility). If our words and deeds are not easily reversed or somehow discounted, we will more likely be bound by them as we can not reason away the acts to reduce our cognitive dissonance (i.e., irrevocability). Finally, if we have entered into those behaviours or verbally committed ourselves of our own free will (i.e., we were not coerced), we will more likely be bound by them as they are identified with us via our choice (i.e., volitionality).
As a strategy to stimulate commitment, then, provide opportunities for committing acts. If employees voluntarily engage in explicit, public acts that are difficult to revoke or change, this behaviour tends to increase levels of commitment. This suggests giving individuals the opportunity to talk about the innovation and its benefits to them and to the organisation.
Copyright©1999,2000
Holistic Management Pty. Ltd.