PLEASE VISIT OUR SPONSORS

Human Performance

Published October 2008

What to Do About Performance Troublemakers

Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D.

The concept was great. The business case was sound. The new system would save time, energy and costs. It would increase performance consistency and eliminate performer and manager frustrations. It had everything going for it.

Why didn't it work? Why did the very people whose lives it was intended to make easier fail to jump on-board? The answer lies in three little words that have dramatic performance impact: "novelty," "complexity" and "abstractness."

Novelty

We like new things. We try out new recipes and restaurants, buy new clothes and change our cars fairly regularly. Curiosity often motivates us, but in all these instances, we make choices. The novelties we choose don't appear to threaten or disrupt our lives. We embrace change that enhances, does not demand excessive or unfamiliar effort and appears easy to integrate into our current behavior patterns.

We reflexively reject novelty perceived as problematic or burdensome, especially when introduced during stressful periods. In these instances, novelty tends to trigger negative reactions of avoidance and resistance. Further, we are hardwired to revert to familiar routines and patterns of conduct when stressed.

Neophobia — fear of novelty — manifests itself in the workplace when change is seen as a threat in an already high-pressure environment. The result is often millions of dollars wasted on organizational change efforts — even when they offer benefits to performers — and delay tactics or outright sabotage can occur.

What to do? Some research evidence — such as John Hajdukiewicz and Kim Vicente's 2002 study, "Designing for Adaptation to Novelty and Change" — suggests deliberately designing simple, user-centered elements into the novelty reduces adaptation resistance. As in the normal process for selecting what we invite into our lives — a new TV, different food, a novel hairdo or exotic vacation — we must feel we are in charge. Novelty introduced so performers feel a strong sense of control significantly increases the probability of acceptance and desired performance.

Complexity

The more complex a requirement to perform is perceived, the more poorly people perform. The key is the word "perceived." As Guy Boy explains in the 2007 report "Perceived Complexity and Cognitive Stability in Human-Centered Design," perception of complexity is our determination of the gulf between what we believe we can do and what is being asked of us. This affects our need for "cognitive stability," the desire for simplicity and controllability: "what I know I can handle."

Perceived complexity leads to cognitive instability, resulting in reduced performance. One can overcome this by reducing the perception of complexity. A system, procedure or machine may be internally complex, but if well-designed, its complexities are hidden, and the experience is made easy for the user. The result is increased cognitive stability and vastly improved performance. Google is a familiar example of simplified complexity and successful performance, with virtually no coaching needed for hundreds of millions of users.