The Ultimate Theory
There are issues that require resolution. These issues are being investigated by our team. Their research is thorough. They look into the findings of other researchers. They look at fresh perspectives and data in their own research. Using the new knowledge, they test hypotheses, conduct experiments, and draw conclusions. From the lab to the real world, new procedures and technologies make it, but they aren't always well-received or enthusiastically adopted. Assuming everything goes according to plan, we should be able to get better and more efficient as we gain information and put it to use. Our simplistic model does not reflect the reality at all. Rejection, not a seamless transfer from idea to execution, is certain. In the absence of flat-out rejection, covert subversion is practically guaranteed. Some explanations for the public's reluctance to embrace apparent advancements have emerged from studies in psychology and neuroscience. The reasons behind people's efforts to maintain the status quo are revealed.
The steps in our information transfer model are as follows: first, research generates knowledge; second, research becomes usable technology; third, schools and universities incorporate new technology into their curricula; and finally, graduates bring their new technology into the workplace, where they encounter resistance to methods and processes. Why is it so hard to get into the swing of things at work? For instance, why was it so hard for Dr. Walter Shewhart's statistical process control, which he invented in May of 1924, to gain traction in contemporary American workplaces? It continues to face significant backlash, even in 2007! The majority of us have the innocent belief that we can acquire fresh, entirely reasonable ideas and then implement them. Just get the ideas out there, show them how useful they are, and then reap the rewards. The truth is that there is a huge barrier between good ideas and effective execution. Typical human conduct will rebel against constructive change. People and organisations throw out major advancements. The secret to successfully navigating the implementation barriers is to understand the rejection behaviour. Implementing Dr. Shewhart's relatively straightforward concepts on a large scale requires knowledge of human and group behaviour.
An individual's "theory of everything" is unique to them. Here on Earth, everything is relative to how we choose to perceive it. Our ability to take in information and attempt to make sense of it is hardwired into us from the moment of our birth. This starts the moment a baby is born, as documented in The Scientist in the Crib by Alison Gopnik et al. At some point, each of us creates our own "theory of everything" by piecing together this information from various sources.
As long as our bodies are functioning, we will be immersed in a deluge of fresh information. Many receptors are available to us for the purpose of detecting novel stimuli. There are only three things to do when new information is found: either accept the new data as accurate, check the new data for relevance and applicability, or reject the new information.
If we take fresh information at face value, we can't build a picture of the cosmos. The old data would be superseded by the new data. Consider a huge jigsaw puzzle as an example. We would never land on a foundational point if we mindlessly embraced new information. Never in a million years would the jigsaw pieces fit together. We couldn't tell which pieces were on the outside from which ones were inside, even though they were all on the card table. We couldn't put pieces together just because they shared a connection with one next to it. Even if we had seen this specific item before, we couldn't tell.
The safest course of action is to think about the new information in light of our current data repository. Once again, using the analogy of a puzzle, we look for connections to the previously explored area of the image. Is that the cliff? Does it relate to the photographic topic in terms of colour? Is there a connection between its shape and other parts? Maybe the true importance of its many features is something we do not fully grasp. Maybe we'll find this in an errant piece when we put the full puzzle together. Maybe there was a solution to a puzzle on the table next to it. It might be an abnormality with a deformity. Maybe we ought to reevaluate our "theory of everything" and make the necessary adjustments to accommodate fresh data.
Our "theory of every thing" is at odds with the new evidence, therefore we can dismiss it as irrelevant. We couldn't accept the new data since it contradicts our preconceived notions. "You must be wrong otherwise we would not be arguing!" A basic fact is that rearranging our individual "theory of everything" creates a lot of stress. For a large portion of the people, experiencing serenity is far more essential than possessing a complete understanding of the cosmos that explains all the observed facts. When faced with the mental and emotional challenges of formulating a new "theory of everything" and evaluating new evidence, rejecting such findings is often seen as the better choice. Though the Titanic would go down in a matter of hours, psychological tests show that most passengers still prefer to be on the ship's deck, where it is firmer.
Modern technology is easy enough for anybody to grasp. There are vast stores of information in every discipline. All areas of knowledge have advanced greatly thanks to extensive research, experimentation, and refinement. Enlightenment thought and practice flourished in the 20th century. The period of greatest superstition appears to be upon us, though. Each form of opposition to constructive change has its own body of research, experiments, and refinements. Ongoing studies on resistance offer some light on the subject.
The theory of dissonance put forward by Leon Festinger in 1957 is fundamental to the adoption and incorporation of new work practices. Experimental evidence is presented in his Theory of Cognitive Dissonance to support his claim that people experience cognitive dissonance when exposed to novel concepts and information. Harmony is the state of calm when there is no disturbance and all evidence supports one's own "theory of everything." Anxiety and other distressing feelings are heightened by cognitive dissonance. A lot of people will go to extreme lengths to make things sound more harmonious and less discordant. There may be a connection between McGregor's X and Y ideas and how much dissonance a person can tolerate.
The simplistic belief is that if management implements all of the Lean Six Sigma principles, the workforce will respond with the same level of enthusiasm as the French celebrated when the Allies freed Paris. In practice, techniques like DMAIC, Visual Factory, Kaizen, Kanban, Poke Yoke, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) bring about a great deal of discord. Every employee's "theory of everything" has been shattered by management. Dissonance causes serious discontent, some of which is overt and some of which is hidden, but all of it is genuine. Teams and kaizen will be significantly less effective as a result of this rebellion. We can't implement Lean Six Sigma without first mastering the Festinger model of cognitive dissonance. In order to overcome the revolt, we need to understand this psychological process.
