The Theory of All Things

We are facing issues that require resolution. These issues are being investigated by our team. Research is their specialty. What other researchers have found is what they look into. They look at fresh perspectives and data in their own research. They generate ideas, conduct experiments, and evaluate the results. From the lab to the real world, new procedures and technologies make it, but they aren't always well-received or enthusiastically adopted. Learning, applying knowledge, improving, and becoming more productive and efficient is our naïve model. Our simplistic model does not reflect the reality at all. Rejection is more likely than a seamless evolution from idea to execution. In the absence of flat-out rejection, covert subversion is practically guaranteed. Researchers in the fields of psychology and neuroscience have shed light on the reasons why people resist plainly better options. It explains why everyone is so intent on maintaining the current situation.

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. Is there a specific reason why getting into a new job is so challenging? 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? There is still a lot of pushback, even in 2007! The innocent belief that we can acquire new, entirely valid ideas and subsequently implement them is held by the majority of us. Presenting the concepts, proving their value, and enjoying the fruits are all that is required. There is a big obstacle between good ideas and good execution, the truth is. Typical human conduct will rebel against constructive change. Big strides are thrown out by individuals and organizations. The secret to successfully navigating the implementation barriers is to understand the rejection behavior. Implementing Dr. Shewhart's relatively straightforward theories on a large scale requires knowledge of human and group behavior.

The "theory of everything" is subjective and unique to each individual. The world we live in is one in which everything is relative. Our ability to take in information and attempt to make sense of it is hardwired into us from the moment of our birth. Alison Gopnik et al.'s The Scientist in the Crib details how this starts right from the moment of birth. Our particular "theory of everything" is the culmination of our efforts to piece together this vast amount of information about the cosmos.

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. We can either take the new knowledge at face value, determine whether it is relevant and applicable, or dismiss it altogether when we come up with a new idea.

We can't build a picture of the cosmos around us if we take fresh information at face value. The old data would be superseded by the new data. We can compare it to a big jigsaw puzzle. We would never go anywhere if we just accepted fresh information at face value. None of the jigsaw pieces could ever 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. It would be impossible for us to put parts together based on their shared relationships with neighboring components. It would be impossible for us to tell if we had seen this specific artwork previously.

Thinking about the new data in light of our current data bank is the most sensible thing to do. Using the same logic as before, we look for connections to the previously explored area of the image in an effort to solve the puzzle. Does it sit on the edge? Does it relate to the photographic theme in terms of color? Is there some sort of shape relationship between it and the 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. A neighboring table may have been the source. Maybe it's an abnormal, deformed one. We should probably reevaluate our "theory of everything" and make some changes so it can accommodate fresh evidence.

Rejecting the new evidence because it goes against our "theory of everything" is the most popular choice. We couldn't accept the new data since it contradicts our preconceived notions. "You must be wrong otherwise we would not be arguing!" The fact that rearranging our individual "theory of everything" is incredibly stressful is a basic reality. Being at peace is far more essential to a large portion of the people than having a complete theory of the universe that explains all the data that has been observed. 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. Despite the fact that the Titanic will sink in a matter of hours, psychological tests confirm the idea that most passengers would rather remain on the ship's deck.

Modern technology is easy enough for a child 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. Still, this appears to be the most superstitious era ever. 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.

Leon Festinger's 1957 notion of dissonance is crucial to the adoption and incorporation of new work practices. He demonstrates experimentally in his Theory of Cognitive Dissonance that people's minds experience cognitive dissonance when exposed to novel information or concepts. Harmony, or a state of tranquility, occurs when all facts conform to one's own "theory of everything." When we experience cognitive dissonance, it might lead to feelings of unease and concern. A lot of people will go to extreme lengths to make things sound more harmonious and less discordant. Maybe McGregor's X and Y theories have anything to do with how much dissonance a person can tolerate.

Management has the innocent belief that if they implement all of the Lean Six Sigma principles, the workforce will respond with the same level of enthusiasm as the French 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. Because of the dissonance, there will be serious rebellion, some of which will be obvious and some of which will be more subtle. The efficiency of teams and kaizen will be greatly affected by this uprising. We can't implement Lean Six Sigma without first mastering the Festinger model of cognitive dissonance. By delving into this psychological phenomenon, we can devise plans to vanquish the revolt.