Читать книгу Stepping Forward Together: Creating Trust and Commitment in the Workplace - Mac Ph.D. McIntire - Страница 8

I could tell Paul was amused at my suggestion that the first step toward COMMITMENT is being CLOSED to it. It didn’t seem to him that being closed would be an indicator people were at the threshold of commitment.

“Why do you think people respond CLOSED to change?” I asked.

“People don’t like change,” Paul replied.

“Yes. But why don’t they like change?”

“People are afraid of change. They’re afraid of the unknown.”

I tore off a blank sheet of my notepad and wrote down our thoughts as we discussed the reasons why people resist change.

“What is it about the unknown that they’re afraid of?” I pressed.

“It’s scary. They don’t know what’s going to happen. They’re afraid of failure.”

“I’m sure that’s true. But are they afraid the change will fail, or are they afraid they will fail?”

“Probably both,” Paul suggested.

“I’ll talk about fear of personal failure in a moment. But let’s first address the suggestion that people are afraid the change will fail.”

Paul and I agreed many people hesitate to commit to a change because they’re not sure the change will succeed. No one wants to put a lot of energy into something that doesn’t work. Rather than commit early in the process and be disappointed should the change fail, some people wait to see how successful the change will be before expending energy and effort supporting it.

Some people don’t support a change because they think it is the wrong course of action and it’s destined to fail. Since they believe it’s a bad idea that probably won’t work, they don’t commit to it.

“Don’t you think it’s interesting that some people’s response to a proposed change is to assume it will fail?” I asked. “It’s as if they feel upper management cloistered themselves in a room, brainstormed a list of the worst ideas they could think of, prioritized the list, and then picked the dumbest of the ideas to spring on the employees.”

Paul roared with laughter. He said he was sure he had employees at his plant who thought that way.

“Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. It’s just amazing to me that some employees seem to think all managers are idiots. I doubt anyone implements what they feel is a bad change.”

I continued: “OK, what are some other reasons why people respond CLOSED to change?”

“People fear they may lose something in the change. They may lose their job, lose status, or lose power,” Paul surmised.

“Certainly that’s a legitimate fear,” I agreed.

Organizational improvements often result in job elimination. Employees tend to resist any change that suggests people might lose their jobs. Managers who spend years building their fiefdom may have a hard time supporting any effort to reduce or alter the boundaries of their kingdom. The loss of job security or positional status is a major reason why people resist change.

I explained the primary reason why people resist change is because the change takes people out of their comfort zones by altering their routines. Most people prefer to “routinize” their work and personal lives. Routine tasks are easier to perform because they can be done with minimal thinking. We program our minds and bodies to perform routine tasks without conscious thought. When we are in a comfortable routine, our minds are at ease. We work without mental effort. It’s comforting and less stressful to be able to perform competently without thinking.

When the routines are disrupted, employees have to consciously think about the new processes. They have to stay mentally focused until they become comfortable with the new way of doing things. Where previously the employee could work without thinking, a change requires conscious thought until the task becomes routine once again.

“Nothing irritates employees more than having to think at work,” I joked. “People don’t like to be conscious at work; it taxes their brains when they have to consciously think about what they’re doing. Employees prefer to work on auto pilot so they can think about other things while they’re toiling. That’s why people develop routines for almost everything they do. It’s also why they resist any change to their routines.”

I went on to explain when people like what they are doing, and are comfortable with it, they usually fight to keep their routines in place. They already went through the commitment process to get to where they are and they’re not anxious to change their routines and have to commit to new procedures. This is particularly true of people who had a personal hand in creating the processes they use. People are naturally loyal to objects of their own design. They have a hard time relinquishing their commitment and shifting their loyalty to someone else’s change.

“When you create something new, more often than not, you have to destroy something old, but human beings will not easily destroy that which they have created. Once people have created their personal routines, it will be harder for them to accept imposed change. That’s why it’s important to get employees involved prior to implementing a change. People are more inclined to accept changes they helped design.”

Paul suggested people also will resist any change that implies the current way of doing things is wrong or inadequate. People are proud of their effort and they often take it as a personal affront when someone suggests they need to change.

“If a person develops his routine and someone wants to change it, that’s like saying what he’s been doing is wrong or stupid,” Paul said. “It just dawned on me how arrogant it must appear when management, particularly new management, comes in and starts changing work processes. It’s like saying: ‘You’ve been doing it all wrong in the past, and aren’t you glad I’m finally here with all my brilliance to keep you from being stupid?’”

“That’s why it’s so important to get conscious about what happens to human beings internally during the commitment process,” I said, attempting to anchor an earlier point I’d made. “The Ladder of Commitment consciously shows the internal, subconscious issues people tussle with at the CLOSED stage before they can climb higher up the Ladder to COMMITMENT.”

I reemphasized to Paul that one of the major reasons why people resist change is because it makes them feel uncomfortable. But I wanted him to understand another, even more powerful, subconscious concern that keeps people from willingly accepting change.

“In addition to the discomfort entailed in every change, there is another super-subtle impact hidden within every change,” I declared. “Every change to the routine automatically makes a person feel incompetent, even if just for a small moment, until she learns the new routine. Whereas, before the change the employee could perform the task competently without thinking, a change requires her to learn the new routine. It demands conscious thought and creates a sudden awareness that the person can no longer do a task that she once could do so easily.”

I wanted to give Paul an example to help him understand how a change makes a person incompetent.

“Paul, in your job as the general manager of your company, do you have certain forms that you have to fill out regularly, perhaps daily?”

“Yes. A few.”

“When you fill out those forms, do you have to read them before you fill them out? Each time you use the forms do you have to read where it says ‘name’ before filling in the name, read the word ‘address’ before writing down the address, and so forth?” I asked.

“Of course not. I just start filling them out.”

“That’s because you already know what the form says and you’re competent at filling it out,” I declared. “It’s unconscious competence. You don’t even think about what you’re doing. You just start doing it. In fact, filling out that form is so routine, I’ll bet you can reach for the form and start filling it out without even thinking about it.”

“Yes, that’s true,” Paul confirmed.

“But what happens if someone changes the form?”

“I have to read it,” Paul said.

“Yes. For just a brief moment you can’t do something you used to do without thinking. You’re incompetent. And that’s irritating, isn’t it? It’s particularly irritating to be incompetent on something as trivial as filling out a form. Even minor changes, such as changing a form, can cause irritation at work because it makes people incompetent and forces them to think, even if it’s just for a few seconds.”

“That’s interesting,” Paul said, going inside himself and reflecting back to changes made at his company. “I’ve been shocked that minor changes on the assembly line cause a major ruckus from the workers. To me they are no big deal, but they always seem to be a major irritant to the employees. I guess that’s why.”

“Let’s explore that even further,” I continued. “What happens if they not only change the form, but they also move it to a new location? Now you have to both learn how to fill out the new form and remember where it is located. You have to retrain your mind and your body to retrieve the form from the new location and fill it out the new way.

“Like I said before, even if the new task takes only a few short minutes to learn, people hate being incompetent for even a few seconds as they struggle to learn the new way. They don’t like having to think about something they previously could do without thinking. Minor adjustments can be major irritations to some people.”

I told Paul, if he really wanted to see how people react to a simple change, he should go home and move the silverware drawer in the kitchen and see what happens.

“No thanks!” Paul shot back with a look of horror on his face. “I already know what will happen.” He didn’t want to incur the wrath of his family.

“And you know what’s really funny?” I added. “Moving the silverware drawer would irritate you, too, even though you’re the one who moved it, because you know you’re going to keep going back to the old location!”

I pointed out that if short-term incompetence is so abhorrent, longer-term incompetence is almost intolerable; particularly to adults. This is why adults are often hesitant to learn new things. An adult, for example, may wish to learn how to play the piano, yet shy away from attempting to do so out of fear of appearing incompetent while learning the new skill. Unconsciously, adults dread going through the beginner-level piano books. Adults want to be fully competent instantaneously, expecting to play Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto #1 immediately or within an unreasonably short period of time. Many of the people who say: “I’ve always wanted to . . . .,” never do, because they cannot bear being incompetent at the beginning of the journey as they learn the new skill.

“Paul, if small changes, like moving the location of an object or changing a form are so irritating, think of the emotional impact of large scale organizational change,” I stressed. “Sometimes I think managers have no inkling of just how intrinsically difficult it is for people to alter their present course or perspective. Failure on management’s part to understand the commitment process on major organizational changes is bad enough, but managers need to realize employees will become annoyed at even minor changes. That’s why you need to fully grasp what happens to people internally before they will climb the Ladder of Commitment.”

I switched to a personal example to better anchor my point. I told him the transition from single-life to married-life is an example of how difficult it can be to adjust to change. Marriage requires a major modification to one’s routine. Two single people bring to the marriage their set ways of doing things and then have to meld their individual routines into one. Each has to consciously adjust to the other person’s habits, customs and personal schedule. They have to give and take, compromise and collaborate, until they develop new routines that are comfortable and acceptable to both parties. The high divorce rate may merely be a result of couples who could not adjust to the cumulative changes the marriage brought into their lives.

As stated earlier, the married couple’s routine changes again with the addition of their first child. Children dramatically disrupt the routine the couple worked so hard to establish in the formative years of their marriage. Now they must consciously create new routines that are effective in the new situation. For some, the stress of adjusting to the multitude of changes wrought by the addition of a child can be overwhelming. Some couples postpone this disruption for as long as they can, consciously or unconsciously anticipating the impact a child will have on their routine. A few couples decide not to have children at all. Some explain their decision by saying: “We don’t want to bring children into this horrible world” when what they may actually mean is they don’t want to bring children into their world – their world of a well-established routine that would be disrupted by having children.

“Employees are no different,” I suggested. “They offer similar rationalization for why their routine should not be altered when they say such things as: ‘It will never work here,’ ‘That’s been tried before and it didn’t work,’ or ‘It won’t make any difference, so we might as well leave it the way it is.’

I told Paul there are countless reasons why people are CLOSED to change, and almost all of them are directly tied to feelings of discomfort and incompetence. I wanted to demonstrate what happens to people during a change so Paul could understand how he should respond in the future when he sensed resistance to his organizational changes.

I asked him to fold his arms. It was a silly exercise, one that is used frequently in training courses: but this simple example demonstrates some very profound points regarding the commitment process that every manager should understand.

I told Paul to get conscious about how he folds his arms. Notice which arm folds over the other arm and tucks under; and which arm folds under his arm and lies on top. Once Paul was sure how he normally folds his arms, I then asked him to reverse his fold.

I watched as he tried to figure out how to reverse the folding of his arms. It took a moment, but he finally got it. He smiled and shook his head in frustration at having to struggle with such a simple task as folding his arms.

“How does it feel?” I asked.

“Weird. Uncomfortable.”

“You’ve just experienced a change. And, as with almost all changes, it feels weird and uncomfortable.”

I told Paul that from now on whenever he folded his arms in the future he had to fold his arms this new way. “This is the right way to fold your arms.” I firmly declared. “Anytime you fold your arms from this moment forward, you must do it the right way – this new way. This is my policy for folding arms.

“I want to make sure I’m clear,” I stressed. “From now on you will fold your arms this new way, not the way you used to do it. Are you clear on the new policy? Do you know what I expect from you regarding folding your arms in the future?”

Paul looked at me as if I were crazy.

“So, what question is going through your head right now?” I asked.

“Why?”

“Remember that,” I counseled. “You’ve just learned something very important about change. People always want to know why the change is necessary before they will commit to it. I will explain more about the importance of the why questions later, but for now, my answer to your question about why you need to fold your arms the new way is: ‘Because that’s my policy.’”

“But why?” Paul asked again.

I smiled at Paul’s response. “You’re just like those whiney employees: always asking why. Like I said, I’ll come back to that in a minute.”

I then told Paul he could unfold his arms, waited a couple of seconds and then quickly told him to fold his arms again, the new way, clapping my hands to speed him up. I watched as he again struggled to fold his arms the right way. He was a model of incompetence. He obviously had to think about it before he could get it right. He first folded his arms the old way, the way he used to do it. Then, after reminding himself of how he used to do it, he switched and did it the new way.

“What’s wrong, Paul? Why did it take you so long to get it right?” I queried.

“I guess I’m stupid,” Paul responded.

“No, you’re incompetent. But don’t take it personally. What you’re really doing is modeling someone who is in the process of learning to change. There are some key things you just modeled that will help you understand how people react to change.

“The first thing managers need to realize whenever a change is implemented is most people will not be able to competently perform the task in the early stage of the change,” I explained. “It may take a while for some people to figure out how to ‘fold their arms’ properly. When employees are learning new tasks, you need to give them time to work through their incompetence. You can’t expect people to adapt and commit to a change immediately. It seldom happens that way.”

I stressed that when people are learning a new task or process, they need an encouragement and reinforcement while they struggle to become competent in the new endeavor. Managers should never yell, threaten, discipline, or criticize people when they’re learning. They should never talk down, belittle, or be sarcastic with those who are struggling to learn. When people are dealing with their own incompetence it can often look like resistance; but they’re not resisting the change, they’re fighting their incompetence. They just need time to work through it. What may look and sound like resistance may actually be fear of personal failure.

Some people may need more time than others. Needing more time doesn’t mean people are slow or bad. It means they are learning. People adjust to change at different speeds. Good managers know they need to be patient when implementing change, particularly large scale change that requires a great deal of adjustment. Managers can greatly accelerate the commitment process by being supportive, rather than critical, of those who seem reluctant to change. Sadly, far too many managers wrongly use discipline or threats when their employees are struggling to learn a new skill, hoping it will motivate them to improve.

“Never use yelling, threats, sarcasm, belittling comments or punishment as a training tool. It’s not helpful and it doesn’t work!” I counseled. “You cannot achieve a positive outcome by negative means. You cannot get people to commit to the action you want by yelling, threatening, belittling or punishing them. Those things don’t cause people to move toward what you want them to do; it only makes them move away from you.”

I really wanted Paul to understand and accept this point.

“When people are learning, you need to be quick to reinforce and slow to point out mistakes. Help people get it right by encouraging them and reinforcing their progress as they learn to ‘fold their arms’ the new way.”

I could tell Paul was thinking about his own behaviors and how he interacted with others both at work and at home. He had written himself some notes while I was speaking.

“One last thing to think about: How long are your children in the learning stage while they’re in your home?” I asked.

“They’re always learning,” Paul rightly answered. “Even when they’re adults, there are still things they can learn from their parents.”

“So, do you ever yell at your children? Do you ever threaten them or punish them? Do you ever talk down to your kids or criticize or belittle them?” I pressed, wanting him to internalize my point. He didn’t respond, but I could tell he understood.

“You may want to remember that,” I stressed. “If it’s true that children are always learning, then it might be helpful to realize that employees are always learning, too. The business environment is constantly changing. There are always new policies, procedures, processes or systems to learn. So purge yelling, criticism, condescending comments, threats and punishment from your repertoire of communication methods – both at home and at work.”

There were several other important lessons about change I wanted Paul to learn from the arm-folding exercise, so I continued talking about the demonstration.

“Did you notice you went back to the old way of folding your arms when I told you to fold your arms the second time? Why was that?” I asked.

“I didn’t even think about it. I did it out of habit.”

I explained some people naturally go back to the old way after a change is implemented, without even noticing they did it. This isn’t out of resistance or malice. It’s natural for people to fall back into old patterns and habits. It takes a long time to engrain into one’s consciousness the fact that the silverware drawer has been moved. They may keep going back to the old way out of habit long after the change has been implemented.

It’s also easier and more comfortable for them to fold their arms the old way. This is not resistance to the change; its avoiding being incompetent.

Another reason why people go back to the old way is to help them remember the new way. Sometimes people have to momentarily revert to the old way in order to recall the new way they are supposed to perform. Some people cannot access the new instructions in their brain and do what they know they are supposed to do until they refer back to the old map and recall where they have been. Then, getting their bearings from old landmarks, they can then proceed in the new direction.

“Come on,” Paul interrupted. “Don’t you think some people resist change just because they don’t want to do it?”

“Sure,” I agreed. “I think there are a small number of individuals who may fold their arms the old way out of obstinacy. I’ve seen employees who figuratively stand on the sidelines stubbornly folding their arms and planting their feet in defiance. But I think the number of truly defiant employees is few. I think most ‘rebellious’ people have reasons for their defiance. When managers uncover what those reasons are, and address them in a positive way, they usually can get most resisters to climb the Ladder to COMMITMENT.”

I explained that sometimes people look and sound like they are resisting change when, in fact, they are just waiting for someone to convince them of the value of the new way. Some people resolutely fold their arms the old way until given a good reason to fold their arms the new way. If the change doesn’t make sense to employees – if they don’t know why it’s necessary or important – they may keep doing things the old way until someone gives a reasonable explanation for why they need to do things differently.

“What really irritates people is when someone changes things for no apparent reason,” I suggested. “Employees get really frustrated when someone changes a form they’ve been using, and the employees discover the new form asks for the exact same information, only in a different format. Employees tend to get irritated and remain on the CLOSED rung on the Ladder when changes that have no apparent purpose. If the change doesn’t make sense, is not logical, or has no perceived value, you can be sure people will be CLOSED to the idea.”

As an example, I suggested a lot of new managers come in and implement changes to current formats or long established processes because they prefer the format or process they used at their previous employer. A manager who changes things just because the manager wants to maintain a routine he or she is comfortable with will infuriate the employees. Why should the employees have to change to the new manager’s processes when the manager could just as easily, or perhaps even easier, adjust to the way things have always been done at the present company?

“People do resist change,” I agreed, “but there is usually a logical reason for it. For example, I once had a guy in a management training session I was conducting tell me, after I did the folding arms exercise, that when I instructed the group to reverse the fold, he didn’t do it. When I asked why, he said, ‘I knew with 25 people in the room you wouldn’t notice how I folded my arms the first time, so I never changed.’”

“What a jerk!” Paul declared.

“No, he’s not a jerk,” I countered. “He’s just acting normally. Some people may appear to be resisting change when, in fact, they actually are acting rationally and reasonably, according to their own sense of what is rational or reasonable.”

“That guy’s response isn’t rational. It’s defiance!” Paul insisted.

“I disagree. I think he’s just being a normal, rational human being,” I offered. “Employees sometimes don’t go along with a change because they think no one will notice whether they changed or not. Employees on the graveyard shift, for example, often get away with doing things their own way because they seldom see the boss late at night. People in remote offices may believe they can ignore corporate dictates because of the distance between them and their corporate overseers. A lot of managers are notorious for attending management training sessions with little intention of making any alteration to their managerial style. They know their bosses will not follow-up to see if what was learned was actually implemented. Lack of follow-through or management involvement, not resistance, is a major contributor to the lack of employee commitment to many change initiatives. People respond CLOSED to any change where they feel their own manager is not committed to the change, as evidenced by the manager’s own inaction. The major question I get from employees as a consultant when I’m involved in an organizational improvement initiative is: ‘Does my manager agree with the change and is she committed to it?”

There were a few more points I wanted to make about why people resist change, so I returned to the arm folding example.

“So, do you think folding your arms the new way will ever become comfortable to you?” I asked.

“Probably. After I’ve done it for awhile.”

“That’s right. That’s another important point about commitment. Whenever a change is implemented it needs to be left in place long enough for people to get comfortable with it and competent at doing it. Companies that implement frequent changes make it difficult for employees to reach the COMMITMENT level. Just when their getting comfortable again, and have become competent in the new routine, another change comes along and throws them out of whack again. Where there is constant change, people tend to stay CLOSED.

“Paul, I realize your tool company, like most companies, has to be adaptive and fluid in order to compete in today’s tough markets. But changing procedures or processes too frequently can greatly diminish employee commitment to the change.”

I told Paul I frequently hear complaints from employees about executives who seem to chase every new management fad. Whenever their CEO reads another management book the company charges off in a new direction based on what the CEO is reading at the time. Then, when the CEO reads another book with a different approach, she gets excited about these additional concepts and she takes the company in a whole new direction. Repeatedly the company swings from one management principle to another as the CEO tries to implement each management technique she reads about in a book. No wonder employees respond unenthusiastically to new fads. They don’t get excited about the latest trend because they know it won’t be long before they will be asked to head off in a new direction.

I could see the wheels turning in Paul’s head.

“You can always tell when you’ve chased too many new programs,” I said, offering, him a way to discern whether he may be trying to change too frequently. “Next time you roll out a new program, listen in the wings to what the employees say about it. If you hear comments such as, ‘Here we go again,’ it might be time to ease up on implementing new programs.”

“That’s me,” he admitted. “I keep reading books and implementing new things, trying to find something that will get my people to be more focused and more productive.”

“And does it work?” I asked.

“No.”

“Then why don’t you stop doing it?” I advised.

I told Paul when I find an executive who seems to be influenced by every new management philosophy or organizational whim, I tell him to stop reading management books for a while. It’s best to find one good management approach, figure out how to make it work, and then leave it in place long enough for people to become proficient at it.

Paul sat reflectively for a moment. “You’re hitting the nail on the head with this one. I know I’m guilty of this. I want to be a good manager. That’s why I read so many management books. I get excited about the things I’m reading and want the other managers at my company to be excited about them, too. I buy copies of the books and pass them out to the managers in my staff meetings. But I doubt they read them. Maybe I’m giving them so many different things to read they don’t know what is important and what isn’t.”

“And they’re probably thinking, ‘here we go again.’” I said softly, reinforcing the point.

“No wonder nothing ever changes. I keep giving managers these books and I expect them to change their management style based on what the books say. I assume they’ll figure out what I want just by reading the book. But I never tell them I want them to change. I never tell them why I gave them the book in the first place or say what parts of the book I think we need to implement. I just assume they’ll figure out what they need to do differently.”

Paul had a look on his face that I’d seen many times before. It was the look of someone who knows he has made a mistake but he’s afraid it may be too late to fix it.

He continued, “It just dawned on me that every time I give these mangers a new book, they probably think I think they’re incompetent. Every new book I give them sends the message: ‘You’re inadequate. You’re not managing right.’ That’s not why I’m giving them the books. I’m just trying to . . .”

“You’re just trying to be helpful,” I said, finishing his sentence. “Don’t feel bad. You’re doing the right thing for the right reason. You just need to be OPEN about ‘why’ you’re giving your managers the books,” I said, pointing to the next rung on the Ladder.

I wrote the word OPEN on the second rung.

“I’ll tell you about the OPEN rung on the Ladder in a minute,” I said. “But first I want to connect what you just learned about giving out too many books to a point we discussed earlier about implementing too many changes.

“Just as your managers respond negatively to the numerous books you give them, so, too, do employees respond poorly with a lot of changes. Some companies re-engineer their structure and processes so frequently there’s no way for the employees to commit to the change. They get shell shocked from the bombardment of changes. Consequently, they just sit back and wait for the next realignment. Why get excited about something if you know it will eventually change again? Too much change too frequently kills commitment.

“The same goes for frequent changes in management personnel. I once did some consulting work with a company that had six presidents in four years. Each time a new president joined the firm the president had absolutely no credibility with the employees. The new presidents might as well have been talking to the wall when he shared his vision of where he wanted to take the company. Based on the history of turnover in the top spot, the employees just looked at their watches and wondered how long it would be before another new president arrived with yet another new vision.”

I wanted Paul to understand that many attempts at organizational change fail because management doesn’t leave the change in place long enough to make it work. A change must be kept in place long enough for people to get comfortable and competent with the change. Companies that implement program after program to improve quality, customer service, teamwork, production, or other deficiencies, seldom achieve a level of true employee commitment because the change never becomes firmly rooted. When employees make comments such as “been there, done that” or “here we go again,” it is an indication that employees are responding CLOSED to the too-frequent changes in the organization. One of the key components of gaining employee commitment to change is this: Find the right change, plan it well, implement it well, and leave it in place long enough to work.

“That makes a lot of sense,” Paul agreed. “I certainly can see mistakes I’ve made in my own organization.”

“Then you’ll probably really enjoy my favorite point about why people resist change. I’ve saved it for last on purpose,” I said, smiling.

I told Paul a great deal can be learned from the laws of physics about motivating people. Newton apparently knew the difficulties of managing people because his First Law of Motion describes quite well why some employees respond CLOSED to change.

Newton’s First Law of Motion has three primary premises. I’ve changed the words slightly so they apply to the change process. Here’s Newton’s First Law of Motion:

Premise number one: An employee at rest tends to stay at rest.

Premise two: An employee in motion tends to follow his natural trajectory at the same speed and in the same direction until he is stopped or influenced by an outside force.

Premise three: An employee in a state of motion tends to resist acceleration.

“This describes the CLOSED area on the Ladder in a nutshell,” I declared. “Premise number one: Non-committed employees tend to stay not committed. Premise number two: Employees going down a certain path tend to stay on that path at the same speed and in the same direction until the manager does something about it. And finally, premise number three: Employees tend to resist management attempts to accelerate them down a different path.”

“You’re talking about my employees!” Paul exclaimed. “They want to stay at rest and they definitely resist acceleration.”

“That’s why management has to provide the accelerant,” I suggested. “The way to light a fire within employees, propelling them toward COMMITMENT, is to get them to step up to the next rung on the Ladder. To do that, managers need to OPEN up to their employees and get their employees to OPEN up to them.”