—from a friend quoting his Industrial Design Professor
This is really a combination of the Rule of Control and the Rule of Privacy, but it needs to be mentioned as its own rule. Some people thrive on change while others shrivel if required to change too much.
The Army studying the results of moving people every two or three years found that some people adapted quite well but that most could take about two to four transfers before they stopped making friends and developed signs of deep depression. “Why make friends you are going to lose in a year or so?” Most families had both types, which lead to high divorce rates and drinking problems. Single soldiers were not immune and would develop substance abuse problems. One of the things done to improve the situation was the concept of a home station where every other transfer was back to the home station so there could be some continuity.
Burn out caused by change can be a problem, but the more difficult problem one has to deal with is people hate being told to change. The usual response to being told to change is to lie or circumvent the changes.
I remember one section that had two SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). When a new officer would come in and make their “dynamic changes” (see Fire Hydrant Syndrome) in the way the unit would run, the in sergeant in charge would pull out the other SOP, update the first page with appropriate wording and date, and the “dynamic new changes” were implemented.
Note: One SOP was for distributed control and the other for centralized control.
Most people will just lie. They will report one set of data while continuing on with business as usual [see: Render unto Caesar…below] knowing that good results are ultimately more important than following procedures [Rule of Rewards].
One commanding general in the reserves was an expert on Lane Training. Lane training is a concept based on creating microcosms to train in without having to create a complete world. Each soldier sees only the reality of his own “Lane” and the areas outside his lane are simulated. It is a great concept for training and the general really was an expert on it.
However, he forced it down everyone’s throats, usually with demeaning comments on others performance, without listening to the problems of units with multiple skill requirements. Infantry units could create one lane for effective training of most of its soldiers. Hospital units had to create 27 [yes, 27, I counted them!] different lanes to train its soldiers. Even though everything he said was correct and all the objections could have been dealt with, his presentation so aggravated the people in the command that everything he put in place was removed within weeks of his transfer. Ten years later, even mentioning lanes training would still cause eyes to roll.
Trojan-Horse Method:
When introducing new ideas, I use what I call the Trojan-Horse method. Using the lane concept as an example. I would demonstrate the concept of creating a microcosm where all external situations could be controlled. The advantages to training became obvious and soldiers would then struggle to figure out how to adapt it to their situations. They loved it because they were in control of the change and they were dedicated to the ideas because they were their own. I never once mentioned the word “lane”. Like the Trojan-Horse, I showed them the beauty of a situation and they drug it inside “their city” and made it their own.