Someone once said that "the only change that humans enjoy is the diaper." Both in our personal life and at the organizational level, change is not easy. But if we don't change, we don't grow. How can we better deal with the changes then? I will answer this question on the personal and organizational levels, although we must not lose sight of the fact that in real processes, both levels are intertwined.
I will transfer the model that Elizabeth Kübler Ross gives for the stages of grief -based on terminal patients- to the organizational level, in accordance with my experience in this field.
Given that human beings are capable of anticipating the future, when life presents us with a change, it is very likely that our first perception of it is concern about the probable loss that said change may represent (especially if the change has not been chosen for us).
Thus, the person who is going to get married - for example - although perhaps yearns for this change in his life, sometimes he will think that he is losing freedom. Or, if there is a change in the way we do things in our work, we are likely to be concerned about whether we will be able to do well with the new system. We fear losing image or prestige, or self-esteem. We do not resist change itself, but the possibility of loss (whether this loss is real or imagined).
For this reason, the stages that a person or an organization go through, when something changes in their personal or professional life, often resemble the stages of a grieving process (of course the intensity varies) and knowing them gives us a "map" useful to walk the path of change with greater relative serenity.
These stages are:
1. Denial: We assume that it is not true that things have changed or that they will change (this is the same in a psychotherapeutic process when faced with an insight that is associated with loss of self-esteem, for example, than in a process of change organizational, when a group is mentioned that will work differently for example). We deny that "the wave" (the change) is happening or is going to happen.
In organizations, it is common for some groups - sometimes unions, sometimes middle managers - to tend to get stuck for a time at this stage. That is to say, that his position is "Here nothing is going to change." This is in contrast to the position of senior management "We must change" and operational staff ("My God… when is this going to change?"). For them it is in the middle management, in which - usually but not always - The greatest resistance to change is usually found.
2. Anger: We get angry (with the boss, with the therapist, with God), as a way of dealing with reality, at the moment when it can no longer be denied. We blame others for what is happening and we feel that there is some injustice ("Why me…? !!").
When this stage occurs in organizations, everything that has to do with providing abundant, frequent and consistent information becomes very relevant. If this is not done, anger leads to making up terrible stories and makes things worse. The idea that is sold to employees at this stage is that of "relative serenity of change", and not that of "guaranteed security."
In other words, it would not be honest to calm people's natural anxiety by guaranteeing, for example, that there will be no layoffs, something that often not even the Directors know for sure. It is more realistic to clarify that the serious thing, really, would be not to change, because certainly, that false sense of security that provides a comfort like the one that IBM had in the 80's or Ford in the late 70's, in the sense that no change it was necessary, it does guarantee –as has been seen historically- an organizational failure).
(Here, when I speak of selling the "relative serenity of change" as a more realistic option than denying the need for change and guaranteeing false security, I am referring to organizations that truly need change, not those with voracious and voracious Directors. dehumanized that for a penny more cut any number of personnel - which by the way is usually a boomerang, as the famous "reengineering" demonstrated when it was applied in its beginnings with a short-term and voracious mentality)
3. Negotiation: This is a stage of internal bargaining, in which, in order to assimilate the "bite" that represents the new situation, we complain internally (or also outwardly) about "if at least", the new situation it would have been given in a more benign way. ("If only I had said it differently…" they would have given me more time to adapt "…).
When this stage occurs in organizations, usually, people have begun to assimilate the change and have begun some attempts to adapt to the new system. This is a period of transition in which the change has partially won some adherents, although of course, some collaborators will still be in the denial stage and others in the anger stage. Therefore, empathy plays an important role in this phase of internal negotiation.
4. The Valley of Transitory Despair (VDT) (The Transitory Depression): Here the reality has become undeniable (it is clear that the ex-girlfriend already likes someone else, or that the new work system has come to stay and that the old system will never come back). We are no longer angry, we have stopped haggling and there is the phenomenon that we temporarily feel empty, without energy or enthusiasm, discouraged.
Both on a personal and organizational level we question our own competence and our self-esteem is fragile at this stage. However, if we "hold on" and learn what the experience of change means (and here therapeutic help, or organizational counseling are important, each in its context) this stage is like a temporary "winter", which strengthens us and makes it mature.
In the organizational context this is the most difficult stage. It is the equivalent of a psychotherapeutic impasse. People are clear that the new system is here to stay but they are not fully in control yet, and they have to deal with this frustration. On the other hand, they know that they cannot go back to the old system. It is like having left a dock, being halfway to another, tired, but without the option of returning to the starting dock.
There are at least 5 elements that, in my experience, are key to making this VDT less long and shallower and these are often the ones that will determine the difference between the success or failure of the change project. Very briefly, I will say that there needs to be:
to. A leader recognized as the owner of the change process who is recognized as integrity, and who enjoys high credibility.
b. A reasonably clear vision of what the future will look like. Without a coherent, shared and felt vision, people do not find a sense of purpose for change. Vision is the rule-criterion that inspires and helps in difficult moments. If not, let them say it - in another context - those who have undergone strong psychotherapy processes and who discover their own voids and feel vulnerable and in a certain sense "naked" before themselves. The organizational vision of change is not formulated at this time, but it is in this phase that it becomes vital to sustain the momentum of the change process.
c. A positive sense of urgency. There is no time here to pity yourself all day. The leader has a lot to do with reinforcing this positive sense of urgency all the time.
d. Training for change and awareness about what is happening (It is different to feel that you will not be able to achieve something, and to believe that you are not really going to achieve it, than to feel it and that someone comes to say to you: «You are going to get on. It just feels like you can't make it, but you will.) This is where organizational psychologists, in particular, can make a vital difference between the success and failure of the change project.
and. Feedback and recognition of what has been achieved: This restores the temporarily lost confidence during this phase of the VDT. The leader must know when to be assertive and pushy and when to reinforce the achievements and recognize not only the results but also the effort. The collapses of the change process usually come largely from leaders who, in this phase, only think to keep pushing.
Of course there are other factors. I have limited myself to mentioning those that seem crucial to me. There is no way to avoid VDT. But there is a difference from heaven to earth, between crossing it without any of the five elements mentioned and being able to dispose of them. The difference can be the success or failure of the change project.
5. Acceptance and growth: Finally, once we get out of the temporary depression, we come to accept the change, we begin to try our strength again (a new girlfriend, the new work system, a new attitude) and we discover that we have reached a new state of certain tranquility and authentic conciliation with ourselves and that in the process we have matured and grown, either personally or organizationally.
Here comes the phase in which we have incorporated the new system. It is now pending to institutionalize it, so that it can last. When no one notices that we have changed in the organization anymore (as has been shown by some airlines that have made important cultural changes such as Continental Airlines, Southwest, or the recognized changes of Sears or General Electric), this is the best sign that the change it has been institutionalized. And now?. Well, now, we have to review again, what other options for change we have.
The above perspective is sometimes insufficient to understand resistance to change. For this reason, I complement it with the organizational culture approach that I present below.
A Perspective of Resistance from Organizational Culture
Often when I present the outline above, I am asked, in my role as a Consultant, how to know if "we are ready for change." With the exception that one is never fully prepared for change, (in the same way that one is never fully prepared for adolescence, or to marry, or to have children) I think the question is just another way to inquire about whether our current way of working in the organization (our current organizational values) will withstand the pressure of the frequently needed change towards greater competitiveness, and above all, if we can establish in which direction the change should be oriented.
And this is where the concept of organizational culture comes into play. Of the diagrams, which are about "her" (and they are abundant) there is one that seems particularly useful to me to answer the question in the previous paragraph. It is the outline of the 4 dimensions of successful organizational cultures that I indicate below.
A strong culture is like a ship that must have the following 4 solid dimensions:
1. Vision: This is the great goal that inspires everyone, that defines "what works and what is not worth" in the organization, and that dictates where we go. The Vision is so to speak - the port to which the ship-organization is heading. Does everyone in the organization know where it is going? Is it known in detail which clients are included in this vision and who are not? Or… Do you want to be everything to everyone? (This doesn't work, by the way)
2. Consistency: In a simple way, consistency is the set of norms, rules, procedures, and rituals that define the particular way, the "style", in which the organization responds to its internal situations. A highly consistent company - like Procter and Gamble for example - has a definite set of "do" and "don't."
Care must be taken, however, not to "get sucked into" this issue of standards, because if consistency is exaggerated, this set of standards no longer adds value, but paperwork and cost. It becomes bureaucracy.
Is the organization still asking for a signature, just out of habit, in such a way that the signature is always signed, regardless of the situation? That is bureaucracy, not consistency. Because it does not add value to the organization (Jack Welch transformed GE in the 90's with this simple rule: "Eliminate all processes that do not add value").
In my experience as a facilitator and workshop leader, I have found that the stability and direction of the ship-organization, which were originally given in it, by a clear vision and a healthy set of effective and streamlining rules, tend to become, with the passage of time, useless ballast. This is common in all types of organizations, private and government, for profit or not for profit.
And then we have too heavy organizations.
We have what I call "The Titanic Syndrome."
Because the Titanic sank, not because it was a weak ship, but because its own inertia prevented it from changing course quickly enough.
As a well-known example - which I mentioned briefly before - it is enough to remember IBM in 1991, before Lou Gerstner took it. IBM had fallen into "the Titanic syndrome," and then, like a lean, well-to-do lady, forgot that the client was its reason for being. (Today - 9 years later - thanks to Gerstner and his brilliant strategy, IBM is back in the big leagues, but not without paying high prices).
Think for a moment: Does your organization look like a Titanic? Do we hide behind euphemistic phrases like we have "work mystique" to positively disguise our mountains of useless paperwork, bureaucratic labyrinths and via crucis, and the risky inertia of inefficiency?
The other two dimensions of culture are complementary to the two views and somewhat antagonistic to the Titanic syndrome. Rather, they outline a kind of sailboat. Let's see.
3. Participation: Simply put, this is a measure of the ease with which information and ideas flow through the organization, reflected among other things, in that meetings are frequent, spontaneous, effective and exciting.
Do the sailors talk in your ship-organization? Is the captain's cabin - and his or her mind - really open to everyone? Are the meetings in your organization enthusiastic or boring, routine or exciting, effective or time consuming?
Obviously an organization cannot implement all the ideas that its members give. The question is whether there is an environment that makes you want to contribute them, or not. It is also not convenient to have meetings all the time. And again, the question is whether enough freedom is perceived in the organization for them to be exciting, creative and efficient.
4. Adaptability: This is the agility with which the organization responds to its external customers and its willingness to change. It is a measure of the flexibility of the organization.
When an organization has high participation and high adaptability, we say that it has a flexible culture and is open to change.
Apple, when it was born, with Steve Jobs (now back with his "Think Different"), had no physical divisions at its headquarters and Jobs claimed at the time that he chose people who had "sparkle in their eyes." Apple was agile, fast and flexible and this enabled it to quickly gain market share. Apple was not a Titanic. It was a sailboat that dodged the waves with grace and ease.
But after changing three presidents in less than 10 years, he lost his way and came close to being shipwrecked.
The conclusion is obvious. It is as risky to be a bureaucratic Titanic (IBM), as it is, to be a sailboat lacking in weight and direction (Apple).
Having the 4 dimensions described strong is not easy, because as an organization increases its weight, direction and stability (Vision and consistency), it almost automatically begins to decrease its flexibility and willingness to change (Participation and Adaptability). The optimal hybrid between Titanic and Velero is not easy to achieve.
I would like to make it clear that the 2 perspectives that I have raised are, of course, not the only ones. Many authors have proposed the change from other approaches: Administrative, Economic, etc. However, in my experience, many organizational leaders do not know, or do not want to know, what happens on an emotional level in the minds and hearts of the people who receive the change, and I have been amazed to see how little material there is at the moment. Regarding, from these 2 perspectives: The psychological-emotional and the cultural.
Hence, I hope that this presentation can encourage other contributions in the humanist line.
Hence, the strategies for change that we propose or analyze as Human Resources professionals in our organizations must be aimed at achieving the best balance «Titanic-Sailboat» that is feasible, underpinning these 4 dimensions, those that in our organization look weak. We will also have to take into account that, from the perspective of the human being who works in our organizations, people will most likely be going through the stages described in the first part of this presentation.
I suggest, then, that the next time someone raises a change strategy for your organization, you first think - as a professional responsible for Organizational Psychology, - if the sharp turn will not turn the ship (impossible turn if it is a Titanic), or if the lack of weight and direction will not make us lose our way (changes in «organizational fashion» every year and that also considers that people do not resist change because it bothers anyone, but rather as a natural process of reaction to what they perceive as a threat of probable loss.
It is part of our task as Organizational Psychologists to help people on this exciting journey of change in the most humane way possible.
(I recommend that readers who want to delve into the indicated dimensions of organizational culture read the book "Corporate Culture and Organizational Productivity" by Daniel R. Denison).
