How Does This Apply to the Business World?

In times of dynamic change, as in the current marketplace, people tend to focus on what they don’t want even more than normal because there are so many unknowns. People question how change will affect them and focus even more on what they don’t want to have happen.

The way people respond to new information has a huge influence on the success of change initiatives in the workplace. As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, when people encounter important new information, they typically react in one of three ways: 20% are very open and excited about it, 50% are cautious and not forthcoming with their support, and 30% are openly opposed. Let’s look at each:

20% I call this group the ambassadors. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a business or a church group or a student association, 20% of the group will say, “Oh, my gosh, I have felt this. I have believed it, and I have personally developed this discipline. I didn’t consciously know what it was, but now that you point out that this is a discipline, I recognize that it’s a choice I have made. I’m so grateful. I want to be a part of it. I want to influence others. I want to help people, teams, and organizations not only be clear about what they want personally but also align with what we want for our team and for our organization.”

50% I call this group the fence-sitters. They can really understand it and intuitively recognize that it’s there, but they’re cautious and sensitive. They are more inclined to sit on the fence and observe. “Is there anything here? Is it really a big deal? Does it really matter?” They are not negative. They are not positive. They are neutral.

30% This group is the detractors. They will say, “You’ve got to be kidding me.” They’ll find every reason why their thought process is valid and worthy. They will openly resist change.

When the ambassadors are interacting with the detractors, in reality they are talking “at” one another, not “with” one another. They both work very hard at stating their case, but neither one truly listens. What commonly happens is that organizations focus a great deal of effort on convincing the detractors to change. Why? Because 30% is a lot of people and they are vocal. Frankly, the vast majority of the effort to sway the detractors is absolutely fruitless. Instead, the majority of the focus should be one-to-one conversations with the fence-sitters. When I’m working with organizations, I always ask, “Who are your ambassadors? Who are the most influential and trustworthy people within your organization who really want to be part of shifting the organizational culture?” Ask those ambassadors to reach out to the fence-sitters and begin the process of talking about how to align their personal wants with the organization’s wants. These conversations are more about asking questions to alleviate concerns rather than telling people to just accept the new direction. Fence-sitters need to be invited to engage in the process and be part of the solution. Ambassadors can talk about the value of focusing on wants. It’s all about questions. It’s definitely not about telling. The power of engaging the 70%, the ambassadors and the fence-sitters, is where the greatest influence lies.

All the while, recognize that the detractors will be openly vocal while the organization is focusing on the 70%. To the detractors, the sheer notion of focusing on what we want and aligning our wants with the organization’s vision, values, and desired outcomes is ludicrous. It sends them into a process of finding every reason why these things can’t happen at this time. They will try to forge conversations with the ambassadors, which they quickly learn is a waste of time, and will actively try to convince the fence-sitters to join their team. As they say, misery loves company. Because the detractors are so vocal, organizations often fall into the trap of focusing on them (the squeaky wheel gets the grease). Don’t do it. They are in the minority, and many of them will eventually come around. Continually feed positive messages and encouragement to the detractors, but don’t openly engage in combat.

Another factor that is powerful and daunting during a time of change is that many people are simply unaware that their thinking is negative. Price Pritchett, a noted author and advisor to Fortune 500 companies, says, “Any time there is a major change, our first scan is for danger. That’s just the way we’re wired as a human being. It’s a survival instinct. But too often people get hung up with what we call the five C’s: complaining about the situation, criticizing management, commiserating with their colleagues, expressing their concern, and sometimes full-blown catastrophizing.” And since about 70% of our thoughts are negative and “cruise through our consciousness undetected,” he says people are in a poor position to correct the situation when only 30% of their thoughts are positive. That’s where the Seeing Red Cars mind-set, if you have made it an intentional way that you operate, will spring into action and come to your aid. Seeing Red Cars is as much about focusing on what you want as it is about eliminating negative thoughts. Drive your actions toward positive outcomes by purposefully focusing on what you want instead of on what you are afraid of and trying to avoid. You get more of whatever you focus on.

The following story of two employees in the same organization beautifully illustrates the power of focusing on the 70% (ambassadors and fence-sitters). Carla was in the 50% group (fence-sitter), and George was in the 30% group (detractor) at an advanced biomedical company I was working with some years ago. The company established a very clear vision. I advised them to give their people a sight line to what is most important and to keep it visible and actionable. We developed a 12-week process to help people focus on the outcomes they were looking for. Every meeting began with “Here is where we are going, and here is where we are at. Where are each of you in this journey, and what steps are you going to take to close that gap?” That was their mode of operation.

Carla was an assembly-line worker and started out as a fence-sitter. She was very curious about the concepts, and frankly, they were a little unnerving to her. She cautiously began thinking to herself about her true passions, strengths, and values. When we were close to the end of the 12-week program, I noticed Carla wanted to speak to me after class. She hung back and waited to have a chance to talk. She finally approached me after everyone had left the room and told me her story. She found the Seeing Red Cars concept (focusing on what you want) intriguing, but it really scared her in the beginning. That was because she realized through the process that she really loves finance and numbers and she wanted to move into the accounting department. She gradually started talking about the idea with her colleagues and manager, and they encouraged her and gave her the confidence to focus on her true interests and values. She finally worked up the courage to apply for the accounting program at a local college. I had the opportunity to follow up with Carla over the years. She completed her accounting education and moved into the accounting department. Eventually, she moved into a leadership role in accounting before she moved to another organization when she married—you see, she had also identified the type of person she wanted to spend her life with during the original 12-week course and ultimately met that person and moved to another city, where she continued her journey as an accountant.

Now I’ll tell you about George, in the same organization and going through the same 12-week program. He was the classic detractor. He squawked on and on. George talked about how it was ridiculous that focusing on outcomes could really have an impact on things and that being aware of the challenges and difficulties was far more important. He was absolutely resistant. Well, we didn’t focus on George. We didn’t leave him out, but we didn’t focus on him. Over the course of three years, we created this thought process where it went from being cumbersome and uncomfortable in the beginning, like new things often are, to becoming very fluid and comfortable, where people were absolutely marching not only to their own personal “I want” statements but also to the statements, vision, and values of the organization.

I’ll never forget the day when George, who had been defiant for so long, was leading a tour of the manufacturing facility. As George was standing in the hallway, I heard him saying, “The way that we operate here—the things that compel us, that get us up every morning, that have us wanting to get better day after day—is that we are truly guided by our vision. . . . That’s not only the organization’s vision, but each of us has clearly defined what we want to accomplish, and we are taking daily, weekly, and monthly actions to move toward those goals.” That was three years into the project. When we heard George utter those words, we finally knew that we had made significant movement. I would venture to say that we had finally hit critical mass. But let me once again reinforce this point. We didn’t push George. Early efforts, early conversations, were absolutely futile. Instead, we put our energies and our effort into the 20% who were really aligned with the thought process, the ambassadors, and into the 50% who were more cautious, the fence-sitters. And lo and behold, we were able to really influence everyone down to the most vocal detractors and to create a culture that absolutely supported focusing on the desired outcomes.