I concluded my previous post (CHANGE HAPPENS. DEAL WITH IT!, September 19) with this question: Why do people treat change as the enemy rather than embrace it? Our reaction to change seems to be a function of our personality, everything which contributes to who we are as a person, and, also, the place where we are in life at the time change emerges. There may be some changes which we welcome and then quickly adapt. Then there may be other changes which provoke a swift and rigid response; this is when change is perceived as the enemy! Personally I can flex with change most of the time. The exception is if I’m in a place in my life where there are many other changes taking place, it can get to be overwhelming for there to be one more change.
Everett Rogers, a sociologist, is credited with originating a theory called “diffusion of innovations,” which basically seeks to explain how different people within a social system (a group of people) respond to innovation and change. This is one of those things you learn in undergrad or grad school, which at the time seems too academic, but it’s actually very helpful, especially if you’re in some type of leadership role.
Rogers uses five categories to describe how people respond to innovation/change: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards. I want to give you a brief definition of each category:
Innovators: The first individuals to adopt an innovation. Innovators are usually the youngest in age, are willing to take risks, come from the highest social group, possess a strong understanding of financial issues, are very social, have the closest contact to scientific sources, and the strongest interaction with other innovators.
Early Adopters: The second fastest group to adopt an innovation. These individuals have the highest degree of leadership skills. They are typically younger in age, a higher social status, more financial understanding than the average person, advanced education, and are more socially skilled than late adopters. Early adopters understand how adopting and adapting to a new innovation will enable them to maintain their role as a central leader.
Early Majority: Individuals in this category adopt an innovation given time. This time is significantly longer than Innovators and Early Adopters. Early Majority individuals tend to have an above average social status, contact with Early Adopters and seldom hold positions of primary leadership of a group.
Late Majority: Individuals in this fourth category will adopt an innovation after the average member of a group. These individuals approach innovation with a high degree of skepticism, have below average social status, very little financial insight, are in contact with others in late majority and early majority, and very little leadership function in a group.
Laggards: Individuals in this group are the last to adopt an innovation. Individuals in this category have little or no leadership role. These individuals typically have an aversion to change-agents (those who are the initiators of change) and are generally more advanced in age. Laggards typically tend to focus on “traditions”, likely have the lowest social status, the lowest degree of financial understanding, are in contact with only family and close friends and virtually no leadership function in a group.
As Rogers studied extensive numbers of groups, he found these five categories of adopters formed an “S-curve”: Innovators, 2.5%; Early Adopters, 13.5%; Early Majority, 34%; Late Majority, 34% and Laggards, 16%.
What does all this mean? Well, Mark Twain said: "The only person that likes change is a wet baby." That’s not exactly true because Innovators, Early Adopters and even some of the Early Majority will eagerly embrace the new opportunities and challenges of change. Personally, I think Rogers’ theory is something every leader needs to be aware of. When a group (school, work, church, family, team, etc.) is facing innovation/change, it is helpful to know that not everyone will react and respond at the same rate. To expect otherwise will lead to great frustration and poor preparation. By “poor preparation,” here’s what I mean: Since the leaders are usually in the first two categories (Innovators and Early Adopters) they may assume everyone will be just as open and eager to embrace innovation/change as they are. The result could be a failure to prepare to lead those who are in the other three categories.
I think Rogers’ theory is helpful to leaders because it reveals that for many people, adapting and adopting change is a process. Since I generally function in the second category (Early Adopters) when it becomes clear to me a change is needed or certain I swiftly shift into the mode of adoption. I think it’s helped that in the first 18 years of my life there was a steady stream of change being introduced and I had to learn how to adapt.
I encourage you to take time to reflect on the five categories and identify how you, as an individual, adopt and adapt to innovation.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment