Skip to main content

The Art of the Excuse

 

I don’t know about you, but when I hear my friends or coworkers using excuses, it really grinds my gears. This is especially true when they are some of the more classic excuses we know. Things like:

·       That won’t work here

·       We’ve always been doing it this way

·       There is too much risk to make that decision

·       Its impossible or it can’t be done

When I hear people saying these things, my first reaction is generally being flabbergasted at how people so smart could act so foolish. However, if we know anything about human nature is that sometimes it just doesn’t make sense. But I can’t really fault them too much because there was a time when I used these excuses. It was a long time ago and prior to me really having an understanding on who I was and what I and those around me are capable of. It took a lot of practice, but I was able to get myself out of that mindset by practicing the power of positivity.

To overcome these negative thoughts and to stop using excuses like these when trying to implement change, my suggestion for you is to remember the human elements. What I mean by the human elements is simply a reminder that you’re dealing with people and you must tread carefully. Change typically creates a conflict between the business side of an organization and its human side (Brown, 2011, p. 147). You must consider the human factor or elements when attempting to make a change in their environment. Leading change is about bringing together both the business and human components of the change (Brown, 2011, p. 147). Afterall, humans are the ones using the aforenoted excuses! Some of the ways you can navigate through the human element and counter the resistance to change is to understand the driving forces. Driving forces are anything that increases the inclination of an organization to implement a proposed change program (Brown, 2011, p. 149). Brown (2011) tells us there are many factors such as external pressures toward change, momentum, motivation, fear of the unknown, disruption of routine, threats to security, power and to the norms and culture of the organization. Diving deeper into what you can do to avoid these factors, leaders must possess the ability to effectively communicate with employees to give a clear vision of the change and what is in it for them. Leaders must also delegate and engage employees as part of the decision-making processes. The participation of the employees is critical and should be placed as a primary objective of the change process. Whether or not your organization can negotiate new profit sharing or pay-for-performance type reward systems could dictate how well your change goes. The trend toward more flexible reward systems and employee ownership plans will probably continue (Brown, 2011, p. 157).

I recently watched the TedX video (2009) with Seth Godwin in which he talks about change being driven by tribes of people that are connected through ideas to create a movement. I agree with his analogy of change bring driven by these connected tribes and see that ideas which create movement are hard to stop. When a collection of employees can join forces and work in harmony towards a common goal or objective, it is indeed much like that of a tribe of people with a common belief looking out for one another as a family, pack or pod would do in the wild.

When I think about sustaining a successful change, especially in the workplace, many things come to mind. I ask myself if we’ve established a clear vision that is championed by an influential person. I ask myself if we’ve engaged employees in the decision-making process and look at which groups are positioning themselves as the “out-group”. Does that group pose a threat to our change and what are we doing to listen to their complaints, suggestions, or chatter to understand what they are also seeing? I now also think about our team as a tribe trying to advance our cause for the good of the group and organization. If these changes are not morally, ethically or illegal, and they will make our business better, then I don’t see a reason why we wouldn’t want to make our tribe into the best one around.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organization Development. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

TedX. (2009, February). The tribes we lead. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_the_tribes_we_lead?language=en

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Marques

  Dear Marques, You’ve continued to gain a lot more knowledge of leadership, the foundational approaches using different aspects from the elements of theories, and a profound appreciation for senior leaders. The question before you today is – what will you do to get back to the mountain top? Your Personal Vision You’ve stated that your personal vision is “to be happy as much as possible” (Thomey, 2021, p. 2). We both know that you were at your best when you were happiest. Whether on the mountain top or not, you brought out the best in yourself when you were happy. You need to find a way to get back to that place so everything else can fall into place. Three Learning Goals In order to accomplish your personal vision, you must establish three learning goals with milestones so that you have a plan and a pathway for getting this done. Your first goal should be to reengage with the Dale Carnegie group for continuing education classes. I know you found this group to have a tra...

Consequentialism vs Deontology

  Consequentialism vs Deontology Is it a glass half-empty or a glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to consequentialism ( Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201). What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective. Much like a...