Class on Change
Do you think it is easy to change? Ah, it is very hard
to change and be different. It means passing through
the waters of oblivion.
D.H. Lawrence
If it is true that change is inevitable, then why is it that change can so easily disrupt the emotional world of individuals? What does D.H. Lawrence mean by oblivion? It turns out that it isn’t just whatever is new that makes change complex. It is the loss involved. Change, by its very nature, means that what was, the way things were, is no more. Something new is now in its place. If an individual is a creature of habit, then what is familiar represents a measure of safety. Change flies in the face of the familiar. It doesn’t matter if the change is a good idea. The change may even make things easier, more efficient, more economical, more liberating, or more convenient. Change may even be actively sought after, meaning that an individual may deliberately seek out and encourage the change. Conceptually, the change may look like a great idea. Practically, however, the individual may still feel threatened.
“It isn’t the changes themselves that people resist. It’s the losses and endings that they have experienced and the transitions that they are resisting. That’s why it does little good to talk about how healthy the outcome of a change will be. Instead, it is healthy to deal directly with the losses and endings.” [1] The logic or objective reality of what change can bring is no match for the subjective reactions of the individuals involved. So it behooves the creators of change, or the change agents, to take time to recognize the perspectives of all who are affected by change. Richard Montanye defines stakeholders as “the companies or individuals that have a vested interest in seeing the company succeed.”[2] In a quest to understand the stakeholders’ subjective perspectives, it may prove difficult to find the concrete measure of these losses. It may be that there is simply a loss of predictability.
Let’s get back to humans as creatures of habit. How often has it been heard that things are done “because we’ve always done it that way?” If we do what we do because it is familiar and predictable, then transitioning to something new and different will be a challenge. It is not impossible. But the transition will be successful, in part, because we recognize the emotional attachment to the past and the very real reactions to change.
The emotions that can be involved in the event of change include anger, anxiety, disorientation, fear, even depression. Individuals generally go through the stages of loss that include denial and bargaining. If this sounds familiar, it is because these are the same stages that people go through when they experience a death of a family member or close friend or partner. To one degree or another, these reactions are found in individuals within an organization when change comes. Each individual may not experience every emotion, but one can expect that within a group of individuals, there will be signs of these reactions. “Not everyone feels all of these feelings intensely, and people don’t go through them by the numbers. But within any group you can expect to encounter all of them and you need to get people to recognize that they can accept the situation and move forward if they work through these emotions. The danger is not from these emotions themselves, but rather from the way they make people afraid of what is happening to them.”[3]
When the loss is recognized and understood, a step in helping individuals through the change process is assisting them in being participatory in the change. If change is not seen as being imposed, but instead happens with the individuals’ input and contribution, the change can been seen as positive. “Coming to accept and adapt to change is in fact a process of balancing: ‘What have I lost?’ should be balanced by ‘What am I gaining?’ This is far different from ‘looking at the bright side. “Inventorying personal losses and gains is a tangible step that people can take in gathering the strength to move on.”[4] The resistance can be lessened if participating individuals have their own vision of being stakeholders. In other words, the stakeholders see that there is something in it for them.
Putting the topic of change in the perspective of an organization, we find the same emotional reaction we see in the individual’s personal life. Organizations should take heed of their staff members’ personal response to change. When preparing for change, change agents must not overlook the perspective of the stakeholders. They must adopt an action plan, sometimes called an integration plan, to negotiate the stages of change and the potential hurdles that will need to be jumped
. John P. Kotter of Harvard Business College recognizes eight stages in creating change successfully. They are:[5]
1. Establishing a sense of urgency
2. Creating the guiding coalition
3. Developing a vision and strategy
4. Communicating the change vision
5. Empowering broad-based action
6. Generating short-term wins
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture
For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus on the two that are most important. The first is communication; the second is leadership. Without question, communicating effectively to all stakeholders is vital to the success of any change.
A failure to communicate will undoubtedly lead to resistance. The clearer the change agent can be, the more likely individuals will be to follow in the new direction. Conversely, the more ambiguous and less forthcoming the change agent is, the more resistance will be met. They all are in direct proportion to one another.
“Keeping the stakeholders involved requires many forms of communication… communication is priceless, easy to achieve and easily forgotten”[6] How does the change agent communicate effectively? First, finding diverse ways of getting the information out will be beneficial. Not all individuals respond the same way to all forms of communication. Within an organization, there are many ways information can be disseminated. These include, but are not limited to, e-mail, small cohort meetings, large formal meetings, and newsletters. It is not enough to bring up what will change once or even twice. It is necessary to do an information campaign where the necessary details can be reiterated effectively to people in all affected areas. Reinforcing the reasoning for change, the procedure and expectations of the change, and the outcomes of the change will ensure all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the implications.
Additionally, it is necessary to keep the lines of communication open throughout the change event. “… spend at least as much time listening as telling. Your attention to this point will help keep others involved and motivated.”[7] Allowing opportunities for questions and answers where individuals can have the freedom to seek explanations and insight is helpful. Giving the opportunities for feedback from those implementing the change will go a long way in showing respect for other perspectives, as well as being a good resource for ideas.
Dispersing updates to keep individuals in the loop of information will remind everyone that the change agent hasn’t forgotten about everyone. Additionally, establishing a resource place for individuals to go to find out what they need to know is an effective tactic. With today’s technology, it is very easy for simple websites to be developed. Alternatively, resource rooms can be created where documents can live and breath to meet the need for communicating progress effectively.
Effective communication goes beyond just getting the information out. It can be the essential element that motivates individuals to first accept change and then embrace it. Sending a consistent message is no small matter. “If you are the boss, people will have their eyes on you. They will listen to your words, but will also look for inconsistencies between your words and what you communicate through body language and behavior.”[8] Sending mixed message does not build confidence. Quite the contrary, mixed messages are a sure way to enhance skepticism and skepticism will defeat any hope of getting the stakeholders to embrace the coming change. In the extreme, individuals can become adversarial and work against the change. Being consistent is vital to the success of efforts to create an open environment for change to happen.
The change agent is responsible for the use of effective communication. They are the leaders. Leadership should not be confused with management. The following definitions are but two of the many that can be found and adopted.
Management Definition: The process of setting and achieving
goals through the execution of five basic management functions:
planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling; that utilize
human, financial, and material resources.[9]
Leadership Definition: Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential. [10]
Using these definitions, it is apparent that the true difference between leadership and management is found in understanding the difference between vision and execution. A leader is involved in the conceptualization of ideas and influencing others by building trust. Managers are those individuals who execute the vision, the individuals who get things done.
Both serve a role in the effectiveness of change. Solid management works in the short term, while solid leadership takes the long view and looks toward the future. One alone cannot fulfill the need for vision and the need for planning. It is possible, of course, that one person can fulfill both roles but it must be understood that there is a distinction between the two roles. Make no mistake: strong management is crucial in the short term need to accomplish what is necessary. Just as bad leadership can destroy any possibility of success, so can bad management.
Because leaders influence others, they are the ones who take on the responsibility of influencing stakeholders to take on and embrace change. Leaders must recognize and acknowledge the human element at work whenever change is introduced. “Be sure that you have a visible leader and sponsor of change, someone who owns and leads the change initiative. The leadership must act as champion; assemble the resources needed for the project, and take responsibility for success or failure.”[11] If the leader is confident and can articulate the change expectations in a manner that clearly demonstrates that individuals have been considered, then getting followers will be easier. A genuine show of compassion for the process of change and its effect on the stakeholders will go a long way towards success.
A point of clarification is needed here. As I use the term leader or leadership, I’m not solely speaking of that lone individual who runs the show. In the traditional hierarchy of top down organizations, the leader is often at the top and looks down on those who are getting the work done. Good leaders are those who subscribe to the notion that everyone contributes to the success of change. Clearly, if the stakeholders are expected to buy in to the change initiative, then the leaders should be solid and effectual in their guidance.
“You do not have to like change to excel in changing times, but you do have to accept it and, at some point choose to make it work.” [12] Understanding the dynamics of changes is a large feat, and surely not one to be taken lightly. The better we are at seeing the complexity of change and the complex nature of humans in reaction to change, the more successful we can be at initiating change.
Change is the only constant.
Heraclitus, Greek Philosopher
[1] William Bridges, “Managing Transitions,” Perseus Publishing Services, May 2003, p. 24
[2] Richard Montanye, “Integrating Change and Embracing it!,” Richard Montanye, 2003, p. 15
[3] William Bridges, “Managing Transitions,” Perseus Publishing Services, May 2003, p. 30
[4] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.93
[5] Harvard Business School, “Leading Change,: Harvard Business School Press, 1996, p. 21
[6] Richard Montanye, “Integrating Change and Embracing it!,” Richard Montanye, 2003, p. 11
[7] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[8] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[9] www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/m.html
[10] http://www.teal.org.uk/Leadership/definition.htm
[11] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[12] Carol Kinsey Goman, “Adapting to Change,” Crisp Publishing Co., 1992, p. 36
to change and be different. It means passing through
the waters of oblivion.
D.H. Lawrence
If it is true that change is inevitable, then why is it that change can so easily disrupt the emotional world of individuals? What does D.H. Lawrence mean by oblivion? It turns out that it isn’t just whatever is new that makes change complex. It is the loss involved. Change, by its very nature, means that what was, the way things were, is no more. Something new is now in its place. If an individual is a creature of habit, then what is familiar represents a measure of safety. Change flies in the face of the familiar. It doesn’t matter if the change is a good idea. The change may even make things easier, more efficient, more economical, more liberating, or more convenient. Change may even be actively sought after, meaning that an individual may deliberately seek out and encourage the change. Conceptually, the change may look like a great idea. Practically, however, the individual may still feel threatened.
“It isn’t the changes themselves that people resist. It’s the losses and endings that they have experienced and the transitions that they are resisting. That’s why it does little good to talk about how healthy the outcome of a change will be. Instead, it is healthy to deal directly with the losses and endings.” [1] The logic or objective reality of what change can bring is no match for the subjective reactions of the individuals involved. So it behooves the creators of change, or the change agents, to take time to recognize the perspectives of all who are affected by change. Richard Montanye defines stakeholders as “the companies or individuals that have a vested interest in seeing the company succeed.”[2] In a quest to understand the stakeholders’ subjective perspectives, it may prove difficult to find the concrete measure of these losses. It may be that there is simply a loss of predictability.
Let’s get back to humans as creatures of habit. How often has it been heard that things are done “because we’ve always done it that way?” If we do what we do because it is familiar and predictable, then transitioning to something new and different will be a challenge. It is not impossible. But the transition will be successful, in part, because we recognize the emotional attachment to the past and the very real reactions to change.
The emotions that can be involved in the event of change include anger, anxiety, disorientation, fear, even depression. Individuals generally go through the stages of loss that include denial and bargaining. If this sounds familiar, it is because these are the same stages that people go through when they experience a death of a family member or close friend or partner. To one degree or another, these reactions are found in individuals within an organization when change comes. Each individual may not experience every emotion, but one can expect that within a group of individuals, there will be signs of these reactions. “Not everyone feels all of these feelings intensely, and people don’t go through them by the numbers. But within any group you can expect to encounter all of them and you need to get people to recognize that they can accept the situation and move forward if they work through these emotions. The danger is not from these emotions themselves, but rather from the way they make people afraid of what is happening to them.”[3]
When the loss is recognized and understood, a step in helping individuals through the change process is assisting them in being participatory in the change. If change is not seen as being imposed, but instead happens with the individuals’ input and contribution, the change can been seen as positive. “Coming to accept and adapt to change is in fact a process of balancing: ‘What have I lost?’ should be balanced by ‘What am I gaining?’ This is far different from ‘looking at the bright side. “Inventorying personal losses and gains is a tangible step that people can take in gathering the strength to move on.”[4] The resistance can be lessened if participating individuals have their own vision of being stakeholders. In other words, the stakeholders see that there is something in it for them.
Putting the topic of change in the perspective of an organization, we find the same emotional reaction we see in the individual’s personal life. Organizations should take heed of their staff members’ personal response to change. When preparing for change, change agents must not overlook the perspective of the stakeholders. They must adopt an action plan, sometimes called an integration plan, to negotiate the stages of change and the potential hurdles that will need to be jumped
. John P. Kotter of Harvard Business College recognizes eight stages in creating change successfully. They are:[5]
1. Establishing a sense of urgency
2. Creating the guiding coalition
3. Developing a vision and strategy
4. Communicating the change vision
5. Empowering broad-based action
6. Generating short-term wins
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture
For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus on the two that are most important. The first is communication; the second is leadership. Without question, communicating effectively to all stakeholders is vital to the success of any change.
A failure to communicate will undoubtedly lead to resistance. The clearer the change agent can be, the more likely individuals will be to follow in the new direction. Conversely, the more ambiguous and less forthcoming the change agent is, the more resistance will be met. They all are in direct proportion to one another.
“Keeping the stakeholders involved requires many forms of communication… communication is priceless, easy to achieve and easily forgotten”[6] How does the change agent communicate effectively? First, finding diverse ways of getting the information out will be beneficial. Not all individuals respond the same way to all forms of communication. Within an organization, there are many ways information can be disseminated. These include, but are not limited to, e-mail, small cohort meetings, large formal meetings, and newsletters. It is not enough to bring up what will change once or even twice. It is necessary to do an information campaign where the necessary details can be reiterated effectively to people in all affected areas. Reinforcing the reasoning for change, the procedure and expectations of the change, and the outcomes of the change will ensure all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the implications.
Additionally, it is necessary to keep the lines of communication open throughout the change event. “… spend at least as much time listening as telling. Your attention to this point will help keep others involved and motivated.”[7] Allowing opportunities for questions and answers where individuals can have the freedom to seek explanations and insight is helpful. Giving the opportunities for feedback from those implementing the change will go a long way in showing respect for other perspectives, as well as being a good resource for ideas.
Dispersing updates to keep individuals in the loop of information will remind everyone that the change agent hasn’t forgotten about everyone. Additionally, establishing a resource place for individuals to go to find out what they need to know is an effective tactic. With today’s technology, it is very easy for simple websites to be developed. Alternatively, resource rooms can be created where documents can live and breath to meet the need for communicating progress effectively.
Effective communication goes beyond just getting the information out. It can be the essential element that motivates individuals to first accept change and then embrace it. Sending a consistent message is no small matter. “If you are the boss, people will have their eyes on you. They will listen to your words, but will also look for inconsistencies between your words and what you communicate through body language and behavior.”[8] Sending mixed message does not build confidence. Quite the contrary, mixed messages are a sure way to enhance skepticism and skepticism will defeat any hope of getting the stakeholders to embrace the coming change. In the extreme, individuals can become adversarial and work against the change. Being consistent is vital to the success of efforts to create an open environment for change to happen.
The change agent is responsible for the use of effective communication. They are the leaders. Leadership should not be confused with management. The following definitions are but two of the many that can be found and adopted.
Management Definition: The process of setting and achieving
goals through the execution of five basic management functions:
planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling; that utilize
human, financial, and material resources.[9]
Leadership Definition: Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential. [10]
Using these definitions, it is apparent that the true difference between leadership and management is found in understanding the difference between vision and execution. A leader is involved in the conceptualization of ideas and influencing others by building trust. Managers are those individuals who execute the vision, the individuals who get things done.
Both serve a role in the effectiveness of change. Solid management works in the short term, while solid leadership takes the long view and looks toward the future. One alone cannot fulfill the need for vision and the need for planning. It is possible, of course, that one person can fulfill both roles but it must be understood that there is a distinction between the two roles. Make no mistake: strong management is crucial in the short term need to accomplish what is necessary. Just as bad leadership can destroy any possibility of success, so can bad management.
Because leaders influence others, they are the ones who take on the responsibility of influencing stakeholders to take on and embrace change. Leaders must recognize and acknowledge the human element at work whenever change is introduced. “Be sure that you have a visible leader and sponsor of change, someone who owns and leads the change initiative. The leadership must act as champion; assemble the resources needed for the project, and take responsibility for success or failure.”[11] If the leader is confident and can articulate the change expectations in a manner that clearly demonstrates that individuals have been considered, then getting followers will be easier. A genuine show of compassion for the process of change and its effect on the stakeholders will go a long way towards success.
A point of clarification is needed here. As I use the term leader or leadership, I’m not solely speaking of that lone individual who runs the show. In the traditional hierarchy of top down organizations, the leader is often at the top and looks down on those who are getting the work done. Good leaders are those who subscribe to the notion that everyone contributes to the success of change. Clearly, if the stakeholders are expected to buy in to the change initiative, then the leaders should be solid and effectual in their guidance.
“You do not have to like change to excel in changing times, but you do have to accept it and, at some point choose to make it work.” [12] Understanding the dynamics of changes is a large feat, and surely not one to be taken lightly. The better we are at seeing the complexity of change and the complex nature of humans in reaction to change, the more successful we can be at initiating change.
Change is the only constant.
Heraclitus, Greek Philosopher
[1] William Bridges, “Managing Transitions,” Perseus Publishing Services, May 2003, p. 24
[2] Richard Montanye, “Integrating Change and Embracing it!,” Richard Montanye, 2003, p. 15
[3] William Bridges, “Managing Transitions,” Perseus Publishing Services, May 2003, p. 30
[4] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.93
[5] Harvard Business School, “Leading Change,: Harvard Business School Press, 1996, p. 21
[6] Richard Montanye, “Integrating Change and Embracing it!,” Richard Montanye, 2003, p. 11
[7] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[8] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[9] www.crfonline.org/orc/glossary/m.html
[10] http://www.teal.org.uk/Leadership/definition.htm
[11] Harvard Business School, “Managing change and Transitions,” Harvard Business School Publishing, 2003, p.38
[12] Carol Kinsey Goman, “Adapting to Change,” Crisp Publishing Co., 1992, p. 36
posted by TCW at 7:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home