Implementation 101: There is More to It Than Technology
The blessing of entering into the HR Tech industry through consulting and then running the HR Tech function in-house is that I got to witness plenty of system implementations take place, plenty of promises made, many functionalities delivered, some ROIs broken, and some post-mortem reviews on how things can be better next time.
I have realized recently that human tenancy plays the most significant role in any implementation program. You can have the best technology, the best implementation team, and the most abundant resources available, but if you don’t address some basic human tenancies, the implementation program will become challenging. Sometimes, we try to address these tenancies in change management, but more often than not, change management gets diluted into a communication plan and a few workshops, which doesn’t really do much (besides checking a box that says “Yes, we have done some change management activities in association with this implementation. Now it’s everyone else’s problem that this technology isn’t sticking in the organization”).
In the spirit of saving those who read this some time and stress, here are the five things I have learned about people in 13 years of doing and leading tech implementations:
Everyone is in it for themselves. So, what is good for the person needs to also be good for the organization. Otherwise, prepare yourself for some strong resistance during implementation if the personal goals of your key stakeholders are not aligned with organizational goals.
Behavior change is hard. It is hard enough to change behavior in our personal lives; we don’t really have the stomach for it in our professional lives. It’s easier to say one wants to be fit than to actually spend 30 minutes each day exercising. Just like it’s easier to say HR needs to transform than to actually spend the time and effort changing behaviors across the organization to achieve transformation goals.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is real. People tend to seek affirmation instead of objective feedback. So, I’m sure you can imagine how noises can get louder and louder in an implementation program if a whisper isn’t addressed correctly on time.
People actually don’t like to think and reflect. Studies have shown that we would much rather experience physical discomfort than spend time in contemplation. In case anyone reading this has ever asked, “What did they think was going to happen?” during an implementation program, I can assure you, 9/10 times, they probably didn’t really think.
This last thought is for stakeholder management purposes: A Players will always choose A Players; B Players will likely choose C Players. So, observe your stakeholders closely the next time you plan an implementation program.
Does this mean we should give up on transformations and behavior change entirely? Absolutely not. Now that you know what you are walking into, the trick is to manage and navigate these typical human tenancies during your next implementation project or transformation program.