Erasing the Objections

Erasing the Objections
See if these points sound familiar:

• There’s nothing special about this technology, it’s just another way to communicate.
• It’s a technology that frees people to express themselves, storing their input sequentially.
• Innovators are jumping on a bandwagon, which will really be just a fad.
• There’s a limited base of research about its real effectiveness.
• Much of the evidence is anecdotal.
• It doesn’t result in as much participation as was promised.
• What if “everyone has to have one?”
• Will everyone will use it?

Yeah, I know. We’ve heard this all before. So why are so many educators slow to embrace interactive whiteboards?

Bright Shiny Objects

The above “observations and objections” were taken from a scholarly research paper about the adoption of high-tech whiteboards in classrooms. We’re talking about the really expensive ones that interact with computers (and just like the one I nearly destroyed through carelessness.) Some of my bullet points above are paraphrases from the article, some are verbatim.

Granted, there are some parallels in the technology to what we see in social media. There’s the possibility of mashing-up data from another source. There’s the sequential storage of information. There’s the ability to share over a wider space and time, and even ways to search through past interactive presentations.

Most importantly, there is a healthy skepticism before the mainstream buys in to the latest bright shiny object. Knowing the life cycle of such objections makes the concerns and cold feet more of a process, and less personal. (It’s the idea of change that’s being questioned – not your change, and certainly not you.)

The Steps of The Skeptic

With minor tweaks in the language, you will see the same general objections arise. Let’s take the bullets above and generalize them:

Photo: Dayna Smith/Washington Post

• It’s not new.
• It doesn’t do anything we can’t do already.
• It’s just a fad.
• The jury is out.
• The data is limited.
• It won’t live up to the promise.
• It creates expectations.
• The expense will be wasted when it’s not embraced.

Of the eight archetypes above, two question the revolutionary nature of the technology; two refer to future projections; two question past performance; and two fear for the effects on employees.

• It doesn’t do.
• It won’t do.
• It hasn’t done.
• We won’t do.

Now, if you can answer those four thematic objections in a convincing manner, you’ve knocked the support out from under the fear. One is past, one is present, one is future – but the trickiest one is the fourth, because it relates to organizational culture. The inclusive “we” makes it personal, and gives the speaker (the person resistant to change) a vested interest in not budging, lest he make an admission of being on the wrong end of the curve.

You need to be very careful with those who express feelings that have been projected onto others; they might just be masking their own uncertainty in a way that hedges their bets. However, those who stomp instead of tiptoe through the minefield of insecurities will find themselves not erasing objections — but erasing themselves.