A different cost concept

When I say “acceptable cost”, you might think I mean how many dollars and dimes you should be willing to invest in an Information Overload Solution, whether it’s a software tool or a training intervention. That is not our subject, however; besides, any attempt to do an ROI calculation is bound to show that practically any cost is worth investing – the damage of Information Overload to both individuals and companies is so huge, that any solution that will solve even 10% of the problem is worth its weight in gold. See this detailed calculation for a 50,000 employee hi-tech company: the overall damage due to time loss alone came to about $1 Billion a year, and the cost of any solution wouldn’t even come close to 1% of that.

What I want to discuss here, by contrast, is a different question: suppose you have a solution to information overload that makes most of your workforce more productive, but the rest of them – a minority – less productive. Is this a good deal?

Fans and Dissenters

It is hard to think of anything in this world that everybody likes (I like to joke that if you found the proverbial perfect cure for cancer, there’d still be talkbacks on the Internet denouncing you with great animosity). This is certainly true for Information Overload solutions. In particular, organization-wide team-level solutions are prone to dissent: a personal solution like deciding when and how to process your email (in preset time slots only! Do yourself a favor!) is unlikely to get push back, since anyone can do it or not as they wish. But team solutions like “No email day”, or “Quiet Time”, or agreements to invest extra effort in crafting legible emails… all these affect the entire group and can’t be adopted (or not) on a person by person basis.

When an organization goes ahead to deploy these solutions, there can be two situations:

• The solution may have a large fan base – be liked by most users – and a minority of dissenters who hate it.
• The solution may be hated by most users, and yet be forced on them because a senior manager likes it and deploys it as a management decision and act of leadership.

The grounds for dissent may be fact-based or imaginary; that is, the dissenters may in fact find the enforced work mode is harming their personal productivity, or they may be over-reacting to the change without such basis. In either case, they’re disgruntled and unhappy, which is hardly a desirable state; in the first case they’re also rendered less productive.

When is the cost of dissent acceptable?

Usually when I discuss Information Overload solutions with managers, their assumption – if I do a good job explaining the benefits – is that my intervention will make their team more productive. But the detailed picture may at times involve a combination of productivity benefit for the majority, and a productivity loss for a minority who can’t adapt to the solution given their personal work style.

The unhappy minority can pose quite a challenge by criticizing and even ridiculing the solution being deployed, and I must admit it isn’t easy to see unhappy customers, people you’re trying to help, and ignore their plight. I then find myself faced with the need to answer the following question:

Is it OK to deploy a solution that will improve the effectiveness of X% of employees and hamper the effectiveness of the remaining (100-X%)? Specifically, what is the threshold value of X, below which the deal is off?

In my view, it is obvious that a certain small number of dissenters is acceptable; after all, the introduction of any new technology or methodology leaves behind a few who can’t adjust, and there would be no progress at all if every change required a consensus. The huge cost of Information Overload results primarily from group-wide issues, and solving those is therefore hugely valuable, making the cost of dealing with the objections secondary by comparison. Of course, if 90% of your people object vigorously, you want to re-examine your plans; but if 10-20% of employees have an issue with the solution, the net benefit will be large nevertheless.

That said, the objections can’t just be ignored, or they will fester and may infect other workers in the team. The dissent must be addressed.

How to mitigate dissent

It is important to mitigate the dissent issue and minimize its cost. This can involve a number of strategies aiming to keep X as high as possible while reducing the impact on the (100-X):

• Defuse the psychological opposition by involving the employee base in the thinking process as early as possible. Keep them informed that solutions to IO are being considered, include some of them in the team finalizing the choice of solutions, survey them for suggestions and objections.
• Apply proven change management practices during the deployment. Communicate, train, sense, and be open to inputs indicating necessary tweaks to the solution. Avoid the temptation to just “Launch and Forget!”
• Understand why some people may be finding the solution counter-productive, and help them to better adapt to it.
• Consider providing to employees who have a valid issue with your solution additional means to counteract that issue. For instance, if you ban emails on the Friday and the employees in some specific function have real need to stay connected by email, include an exception or an alternate system that will help them do so in a formally approved manner. In other words, be flexible with enforcing the solution – but in a controlled manner, after evaluating each problem.
• Last but not least – provide true leadership and role modeling from the team’s management. A great leader will have people follow them through hell and high water – so getting people to forgo email on a Friday may also be within their power…

Related Posts

Defusing the Opposition – in the Dec. 2011 newsletter