#Staff Column
2022.08.01
Will the way we work ever change?
Columnist | Introducing the columns written by member of Amorepacific Group
The Way People Work Nowadays Part 3. Will the way we work ever change?
Columnist | Shin Kihoon
Amorepacific Vision Support Team
Amorepacific Vision Support Team
In Part 1, I talked about getting started with work and in Part 2, I discussed about choosing the real work. Now, in Part 3, I’ll finally (!) get into doing the actual work. The concept of work, however, can have multiple meanings and so it is more difficult than ever to decide on exactly what to write about. I could talk about the cultural aspects, the work process, or even work tools. My experience is limited so I couldn’t just thoughtlessly generalize my views, and the idea of listing my findings from different resources seemed boring, and I didn’t want to bring up sensitive issues, either. Nevertheless, I had a deadline, and a column to finish, so I quickly decided to talk about ‘change,’ which is trending nowadays. I hope that this will become a column worth reading.
#What are our work days like nowadays?
All of us who work create something every day. We create data. We design strategies. We make products. We produce content. We develop promotional campaigns. We build programs, and we establish systems. Everyone who has ever made something will know that we never make the same thing that we’ve always made before. There is an implicit rule that we should never make the same thing again, because trends change, people’s taste changes, technologies change, and the socio-environmental context changes. So, we must change ourselves to adapt to the changes we witness happening in the world. Of course, we should go through some form of the decision-making process about the scope or the direction of the change, but what’s certain is that we are always creating something new as far as permitted.
All of us who work create something every day. We create data. We design strategies. We make products. We produce content. We develop promotional campaigns. We build programs, and we establish systems. Everyone who has ever made something will know that we never make the same thing that we’ve always made before. There is an implicit rule that we should never make the same thing again, because trends change, people’s taste changes, technologies change, and the socio-environmental context changes. So, we must change ourselves to adapt to the changes we witness happening in the world. Of course, we should go through some form of the decision-making process about the scope or the direction of the change, but what’s certain is that we are always creating something new as far as permitted.
We always make something new. We can’t copy and paste like this.
What is strange though is that what we make always changes but the process of creating the outcome, or the interaction process among people has not changed. This is true. Things related to human interactions in our work have not changed. Things like all kinds of regular meetings (weekly/monthly/quarterly/half-yearly), the reports we make to our superiors, collaborative meetings with other departments, and the management method.
For instance, the weekly meetings I attended when I first joined the company (back when no one used smartphones) are no different from the weekly meetings I just attended last week. The only difference is that we used to print out excel files before but now we put up a Confluence page on a large screen. We still “read aloud the weekly work plans that we already inserted in our boxes in a given order” just like in the old days. Still, other people are not at all interested in what I’d be doing this week. Only the team leader listens to what we say attentively (or I believe so). The meeting itself is a bit confusing. Some people only share which stage they are at in the current project, while some people share pending issues, how they are handling them, and how they expect the issue to evolve. I anticipated that things would be better, but they didn’t. We are terrible listeners after all. The weekly meeting disappears faster than anything else when the company begins a company-wide campaign to streamline the work process, although it does get revived after a little while.
The process of reporting is even more interesting (or crucial). The first step of reporting is scheduling. Unfortunately, this is the part that never goes as intended and consumes the most time and energy. If the schedule is delayed by one or two weeks, you have to put the project on halt and just let the time pass. (You must have the experience of having started with the project because you were not able to endure that one or two weeks, only to scrap what you had done altogether.) Once you finally schedule a meeting, you print out your report and read it aloud. Your boss would give feedback and make a decision. Basically, reporting is done by reading aloud the report, written in formal English, in plain English for better understanding. By going through the process, your boss may check details that are not included in the report and discuss things that are lacking. Some reports get approved after checking just a couple of trivial things. In other times, you get blasted (!) over everything from A to Z of the report. No matter which form it takes, it is no different from the reporting we did in the old days. (It’s a relief that we now get to communicate a little.)
For instance, the weekly meetings I attended when I first joined the company (back when no one used smartphones) are no different from the weekly meetings I just attended last week. The only difference is that we used to print out excel files before but now we put up a Confluence page on a large screen. We still “read aloud the weekly work plans that we already inserted in our boxes in a given order” just like in the old days. Still, other people are not at all interested in what I’d be doing this week. Only the team leader listens to what we say attentively (or I believe so). The meeting itself is a bit confusing. Some people only share which stage they are at in the current project, while some people share pending issues, how they are handling them, and how they expect the issue to evolve. I anticipated that things would be better, but they didn’t. We are terrible listeners after all. The weekly meeting disappears faster than anything else when the company begins a company-wide campaign to streamline the work process, although it does get revived after a little while.
The process of reporting is even more interesting (or crucial). The first step of reporting is scheduling. Unfortunately, this is the part that never goes as intended and consumes the most time and energy. If the schedule is delayed by one or two weeks, you have to put the project on halt and just let the time pass. (You must have the experience of having started with the project because you were not able to endure that one or two weeks, only to scrap what you had done altogether.) Once you finally schedule a meeting, you print out your report and read it aloud. Your boss would give feedback and make a decision. Basically, reporting is done by reading aloud the report, written in formal English, in plain English for better understanding. By going through the process, your boss may check details that are not included in the report and discuss things that are lacking. Some reports get approved after checking just a couple of trivial things. In other times, you get blasted (!) over everything from A to Z of the report. No matter which form it takes, it is no different from the reporting we did in the old days. (It’s a relief that we now get to communicate a little.)
How we interact with people has not changed much.
#Can people ever change?
“Why hasn’t the way we interact changed a bit?”
“What led us to behave this way?”
“How did common behavioral patterns that were developed in the process of interaction become fixed?
Let’s assume the following situations.
“Why hasn’t the way we interact changed a bit?”
“What led us to behave this way?”
“How did common behavioral patterns that were developed in the process of interaction become fixed?
Let’s assume the following situations.
Situation 1. This is the first time we meet.
I reach out my hand to shake hands with you. You smiled but did not shake hands.
- Will I attempt to shake hands with someone I meet next time?
- Will you attempt to shake hands with someone you meet next time?
- How many times should we fail to shake hands with other people before we give up shaking hands?
Situation 2. I became a member of your team.
When you came to work in the morning, I complimented you on your outfit.
When hearing it, you felt uncomfortable, and replied that outfits don’t matter as long as you excel at work.
- Will I comment on an outfit when a different colleague comes to work in a stylish outfit?
- How many colleagues will express their discomfort by saying the wardrobe does not matter before I stop commenting on their clothes?
I reach out my hand to shake hands with you. You smiled but did not shake hands.
- Will I attempt to shake hands with someone I meet next time?
- Will you attempt to shake hands with someone you meet next time?
- How many times should we fail to shake hands with other people before we give up shaking hands?
Situation 2. I became a member of your team.
When you came to work in the morning, I complimented you on your outfit.
When hearing it, you felt uncomfortable, and replied that outfits don’t matter as long as you excel at work.
- Will I comment on an outfit when a different colleague comes to work in a stylish outfit?
- How many colleagues will express their discomfort by saying the wardrobe does not matter before I stop commenting on their clothes?
These are all examples of a coordination game. It can be said that our behavior within the organization is determined by coordination with other members of the organization. Obviously, our behavior changes when other people’s behavior changes. In coordination games, there is a tipping point for change. This means that when the behavior of a certain number of people changes, the code of conduct for the entire group can also change.
It is not easy for people, being social animals, to be the only one to act differently from others.
According to research, when the number of people who take the lead in behaving differently reaches 25% of the entire organization, the change triggered by this small percentage of the group has a huge impact on the rest of the organization. What this implies is that 25% of an organization is the tipping point. When this 25% of a company’s members join forces, they are able to change the entire group. However, this also shows that with less than 25% of the people in the organization, even if there are more activities carried out to promote change, it may end up having zero impact on the entire organization. If you happen to exceed the tipping point for some reason, however, no matter how small the action is, it can exert an influence that can affect the whole organization.
Notably, the tipping point is based on the number of people you know in the group, not the number of people of the entire group. So, the more engaged you are with other people in the organization, the more difficult it becomes to be sure about the legitimacy of a new concept or action. In other words, a very outgoing person who interacts with about 500 people may find it more challenging to be convinced of the legitimacy of a new concept or action compared to a person with moderate connections with some 50 people. The more connections you have, the more people you need who accept a new concept or behavior for you to change your mind. 1
Notably, the tipping point is based on the number of people you know in the group, not the number of people of the entire group. So, the more engaged you are with other people in the organization, the more difficult it becomes to be sure about the legitimacy of a new concept or action. In other words, a very outgoing person who interacts with about 500 people may find it more challenging to be convinced of the legitimacy of a new concept or action compared to a person with moderate connections with some 50 people. The more connections you have, the more people you need who accept a new concept or behavior for you to change your mind. 1
#How to change the way we work
Indeed, the paradigm of our social behavior can shift. Following the pandemic, handshakes have been mostly replaced with fist bumps. Now that many people work remotely, the way we conduct meetings and report is also changing in many departments. Company dinners that never seemed to change are now changing. People’s perceptions and behaviors likewise continue to evolve.
When 25% of the people you meet change, your behavior will also change. Let me apply this logic to work. If you move to another organization, your behavior will change. On the contrary, people who are transferred from a different department will soon be assimilated into the new department. If a significant number of the people you meet daily do not change, it is not easy for you to take the lead and start a change. You can’t challenge the existing culture created based on consensus. This makes it seem almost impossible for an individual to transform the way an organization works.
The leader holds the key to change. There is a leader in an organization and their actions wield a greater impact on you than any of the other colleagues you meet do. Plus, the leader has the right to force members to follow that specific action, to some level. Leaders, however, do have much more relationships compared to ordinary members, and he/she may feel more resistance to change. We must take that into consideration. Nevertheless, if leaders don’t take the first step, any change will inevitably be delayed. Even if they are unable to start the change, they must encourage members to make new attempts at least, rather than framing a new movement as negative or odd behavior.
Indeed, the paradigm of our social behavior can shift. Following the pandemic, handshakes have been mostly replaced with fist bumps. Now that many people work remotely, the way we conduct meetings and report is also changing in many departments. Company dinners that never seemed to change are now changing. People’s perceptions and behaviors likewise continue to evolve.
When 25% of the people you meet change, your behavior will also change. Let me apply this logic to work. If you move to another organization, your behavior will change. On the contrary, people who are transferred from a different department will soon be assimilated into the new department. If a significant number of the people you meet daily do not change, it is not easy for you to take the lead and start a change. You can’t challenge the existing culture created based on consensus. This makes it seem almost impossible for an individual to transform the way an organization works.
The leader holds the key to change. There is a leader in an organization and their actions wield a greater impact on you than any of the other colleagues you meet do. Plus, the leader has the right to force members to follow that specific action, to some level. Leaders, however, do have much more relationships compared to ordinary members, and he/she may feel more resistance to change. We must take that into consideration. Nevertheless, if leaders don’t take the first step, any change will inevitably be delayed. Even if they are unable to start the change, they must encourage members to make new attempts at least, rather than framing a new movement as negative or odd behavior.
In the end, changes in an organization are triggered by human interactions.
Without doubt, changes bring about resistance. The same is true for changes led by leaders. This is why we need to communicate with one another. In fact, changes spread faster in horizontal relationships. Reportedly, new concepts and opinions can spread to everyone in groups that have horizontal relationships.
Why do we have to do it this way? Is this the best way of doing this? Isn’t there any better alternative? Don’t we need a reasonable and rational idea on how we work? Why do we have to all be together to hold weekly meetings? Why does this happen weekly? Can’t we meet by project units? Why do we have to report face to face? Why do we have to read the report aloud? If we have to meet, can’t we just discuss the report? We need to discuss and communicate freely on things that we’ve taken for granted and find a brand new way of doing things.
Just like we continue to try to adopt new things about what we make, shouldn’t we also attempt ceaselessly to adopt changes in the way we work? I’d like to conclude this column by tweaking one of my favorite sayings.
Why do we have to do it this way? Is this the best way of doing this? Isn’t there any better alternative? Don’t we need a reasonable and rational idea on how we work? Why do we have to all be together to hold weekly meetings? Why does this happen weekly? Can’t we meet by project units? Why do we have to report face to face? Why do we have to read the report aloud? If we have to meet, can’t we just discuss the report? We need to discuss and communicate freely on things that we’ve taken for granted and find a brand new way of doing things.
Just like we continue to try to adopt new things about what we make, shouldn’t we also attempt ceaselessly to adopt changes in the way we work? I’d like to conclude this column by tweaking one of my favorite sayings.
Communication is the only way to achieve change.
1 Change: How to Make Big Things by Damon Centola, 2021
-
Like
1 -
Recommend
1 -
Thumbs up
1 -
Supporting
0 -
Want follow-up article
0
Array ( )