Understanding the Difficulty of Organizational Change

Understanding the Difficulty of Organizational Change

This blog was originally posted 08/16. I'll be back with new content next week. For all your solutions to your talent management, connect with us today

 
~6-8 minute read~
 
On March 2nd, 1962, the sports world experienced something that it had never seen before and hasn't seen since. In Hershey, PA, the Philadelphia Warrior's Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points against the New York Knicks. 100 points. That is an incredible, unbelievable number. For perspective, Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, the most dominant scorers of their respective generation, managed 69 and 81 points, respectively. Chamberlain, along with his 100 point game, scored over 65 points a remarkable 15 times! 
 
There's a really important detail from the '100 point game' that we need to pay attention to: Chamberlain shot 87.5% from the free throw line. His career average: just over 51%. So what happened? How did Chamberlain perform 36 percentage points better? And why couldn't he maintain that performance going forward? 
 
This story, which I will summarize below, marks the return of Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast to the blog. It is the subject of the 3rd episode, 'The Big Man Can't Shoot'. Many of you all know my affinity for Gladwell, and I encourage you to check out the podcast as well as his other work. 
 
Back to the story. It turns out that the night before, March 1st, Chamberlain had gone out on the town and had himself a great time. And by great time, I mean he had gotten totally drunk. So drunk, in fact, that he was still hung over for the game against the Knicks that evening. Clearly, it didn't impact his play - but he decided to take a tactic from one of his teammates, Rick Berry, when he stepped up to the free throw line. 
 
Berry is a Hall of Famer and was one of the greatest free throw shooters of all time, retiring with a .900 free throw percentage. One of the reasons Berry was such a terrific free throw shooter was his technique. In contrast to the overhand, release from the top technique that 99.99% of players use, Berry used 'the Granny shot': an underhand, release from between your legs technique. In an interview for the podcast, Berry goes into detail about how this way of shooting makes way more sense to use: it is more ergonomic, much more natural physiologically (who walks around with their hands held up over their head?), and the movement is more simplistic, meaning there are fewer variables to go wrong. 
 
Berry, when interviewed, is adamant about this technique. He doesn't care what anyone says. He doesn't care how much people make fun of him, or ridicule his 'granny shot.' There is a right way and a stupid way to do something, and Rick Berry will not be swayed. This technique made Berry one of the greatest free throw shooters of all time, and made Chamberlain, a lifetime 50/50 free throw shooter, almost 75% more accurate
 
So let me ask you a question: How many basketball players do you see using this technique?
 
The correct answer is practically zero. Gladwell lists two: Berry's son, Canyon, who played for the College of Charleston; and Chinanu Onuaku, who currently plays for the Houston Rockets.
 
If I told you that I could teach you a new way to do something that could make you Hall of Fame caliber, or improve your technique by 75% - would you want to implement it? Your first thought is probably an emphatic YES! Which begs the question: why do so many of these players - who have college degrees or multi-million dollar contracts riding on the line - shoot free throws overhead?
 
The answer provides us with an incredibly important insight into human nature, and why it is so hard to understand and change negative aspects of our organizations, our corporate culture, and ourselves.
 
After his 100 point masterpiece, Chamberlain went back to the overhand style of free throw shooting. Why? Here's Chamberlain: "I felt sillylike a sissy, shooting underhand. I know I was wrong, I know some of the best foul shooters in history shot that way - even now, the best free throw shooter in the NBA, Rick Berry, shoots that way - I just couldn't do it."
 
Because it wasn't socially acceptable! Because he didn't want to be made fun of or ridiculed. Because it was different, abnormal, and counter to the way others were doing it. It didn't matter that it was better - it didn't fit in.
 
The sociologist Mark Granovetter developed a conceptual framework for this phenomenon, and he detailed it in a paper titled 'Threshold Models of Collective Behavior' (I've linked to the article for our intrepid readers).
 
Here's the short version: we all have social thresholds for collective behavior. A social threshold is the number of people it takes to push someone to behave a certain way. For instance, if someone comes up to your grandmother and says 'Let's go start a riot', she is most likely going to laugh in their face. Your grandmother has a high social threshold for the social action of rioting. On the other hand, a 15 year old angry kid would be much more likely to participate in a riot - he has a low social threshold. Granovetter's contention is that different people have different thresholds for changing or adapting their behavior based on 'what other people think' (that's the social part). 
 
Are the pieces starting to come together? As Gladwell notes, 'We like to think that good ideas will spread because they're good, because their advantages are obvious...but that's not true.' Even though it was better in almost every conceivable way, even though it made him exponentially better from the foul line, Chamberlain would not use the underhand technique regularly because he had a high social threshold - he did not want to deal with the ridicule, the peer pressure, and the hassle. Everyone else would have to shoot underhand before Chamberlain would.
 
HERE'S THE POINT: most people have very high thresholds for their behavior, and will normally conform. It doesn't matter how many times you say 'Tell me about what is going wrong in this department or process' or 'Make sure you report a discrepancy in the reporting' or 'Let us know if this or that doesn't work.' Most of the time, people are not going to tell you anything.
 
They are going to do what the leadership does, or they will default to the cultural norms - the way it has always been done. They are much more likely to go with the flow - even if what is happening in the flow is dishonest, or unethical, or illegal, or inefficient, or unproductive, or negative - than they are to step out of line. Ever.
 
That is why it is so hard for new ideas to break through, or for more efficient process to be implemented. Cultural inertia is real, and it is very powerful.
 
That is why we say 'You don't always know what you don't know.' You may think you are getting accurate information, or that because you said 'Tell me your new ideas', that people will tell you the truth - but most of the time, if it is new or counter-cultural or difficult to hear, they almost absolutely will not. So your company could be barreling towards a cliff, or losing money because of inefficiency, or running off your top talent because of a toxic culture, and you won't know until it is already too late.
 
The best idea will rarely make it through just because it is the best idea. It will only make it through if it is pushed. This is a case for objectivity, for getting someone to look at your company with fresh eyes who won't be susceptible to peer pressure and organizational culture. 
 
We can help you measure your culture and manage your most important asset: your people. Let us provide you with objectivity, data, and a clear-eyed picture of your company. Contact us today for solutions.