Managing Change
Part 2
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he also writes monthly columns for CIO Magazine and Computerworld Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
The Virginia Satir Change Model
It's a Process
Ask practically anyone for a definition or description of change and they'll offer you something along the lines of 'When things become different.' Or 'When they're no longer the way they once were.' Fair enough, for a start, but if you try to get them to expand on those thoughts, they come up empty. Now, that's not a problem if nothing is changing, but if things are changing on a daily basis, if the changes are extreme, then a mere handful of words is a poor tool with which to face the future.
The basic premise behind Satir's work is: Change is not an event, it's a process. The more we understand this process, the more adept we become at changing and implementing change.
Take a look at the graph. Along the horizontal axis we have the passage of time. The vertical axis can plot several concepts. I find it best to think of it representing 'Competence,' although you could argue it represents 'Productivity' (a second cousin to competence) or 'self esteem'. Or some combination of all three. So far, the model is conveying that during a time of Change, competence will start out level, drop to practically zero, slowly rise according to the familiar 'S' curve, also known as the 'Learning Curve', and then level off again.
It's important to note two things about the graph. It's not drawn to 'scale'. You can't take a ruler and determine that someone should respond in a certain way for a specific period of time. You can however, predict in what sequence a person will adapt to the change. Next? The level portion to the right is higher than the starting area on the left... That's not always the case. Sometimes Change does not ultimately get you to a 'better' place. Sometimes it just gets you to a different place. It depends entirely on the Change and your response to it.
The Status Quo
This is where the Change Process starts, because this is what we leave behind. Most Change models pay little attention to the Status Quo (SQ). That's an oversight. What is SQ? It represents the sum total of all the investments you've made. The key word is 'investment'.
Do you own a home? A car? To ensure no-one takes these possessions from you, we've created entire institutions. The military, the police, the judicial system, they exist to protect your investments. We wouldn't have it any other way. Well, we've made other investments to acquire skills, self esteem, a way of life, a good job etc. etc. These investments represent possessions no less important than our homes and cars. While we have not created formal institutions to protect our SQ, it should be obvious. We'd be foolish, if every time something 'new' came along, we threw away everything we had, and started from scratch. That's what change is ultimately all about. You've acquired this thing called SQ, are you willing to give it up in exchange for something else?
Well, that depends. Doesn't it? Do you like your current SQ? What specifically do you like, or dislike, about the current situation? How does this compare to what you're being offered in trade? If you're implementing this change, do you understand the SQ? I cannot count how many Change projects I've observed, where the person trying to implement a significant change was totally clueless as to how the target audience perceived their current situation. The SQ does not always hold you back from change. Sometimes the SQ is so intolerable, you'll do anything to get to some other place, any place, as long as you can escape the SQ. The Status Quo can be both obstacle and motivation, sometimes paradoxically, at the same time.
Foreign Element
The Foreign Element (FE) is the event which triggers the change, it is not the change itself. The FE is defined as 'the event which threatens the SQ'. It can be imposed on the SQ by external forces or generated internally by either the individual or organization contemplating the 'change'. The distinction between an 'external' vs. 'internal' FE is a useful one. Asked to define 'change', one reasonable response is 'Doing things differently'.
Funnily enough, that exact same phrase 'Doing things differently' also describes 'Creativity'... Personally I find it interesting that 'change' and 'creativity' generate the same definition, and yet are generally perceived differently. ie. Change is bad vs. Creativity is good. I'd suggest this puzzling observation comes about because 'bad' change is usually perceived as being externally imposed, while 'good' creativity is internally generated. To come at this again from a different direction, consider the following. There is a popular myth about Change which leads to some fuzzy thinking: "People hate Change". The correct response to that thought is mild invective. What people hate, is being Changed without their consent or with no control over the process.
When people have control over the change process, they willingly undergo all types of wrenching change. They seek promotions, get married, have kids, learn new languages etc. etc. All huge changes, all sought after eagerly. So much for the notion people 'hate' change. A powerfully effective strategy when implementing change is to make the FE as internal as possible. In other words, give as much control to those who must undergo the change as you can. This concept is not that unusual anymore. It's called empowerment.
One form of control over change is simply access to information. If the target audience knows their SQ, (they usually do,) and IF they know everything there is to know about the FE... they're usually smart enough to know that "if things are to remain the same, then things are going to have to change." (While that quote sounds like a funny contradiction it does contain a hidden truth. The real core of the SQ is always 'security and comfort.' People are smart enough to realize that that is what they'd really like to protect. )
One of the mistakes we make as organizations is to try and keep things simple. We choose to give our folks the minimum amount of information necessary to keep 'them' quiet, rather than giving them all the information required for 'them' to take action. In any change, the more information you can provide, the better.
Resistance
Resistance and 'denial' are brother and sister in the family called 'Rejection'. One's active, the other passive, and both are seen as obstacles to Change. I have heard time and time again, from otherwise astute managers that they want to hire people who don't resist Change. I understand the desire for Change to go as smoothly as possible, but I'd hate to have a staff who willy nilly throw away their competencies just because something new is available. I want people to fight to retain their hard earned productivity levels, until they're convinced the Change is a positive one. I want people to resist Change that doesn't provide a solid payback. I want people to resist a new product just because it's neat and cool.
When someone is resisting Change, they are usually only asking the legitimate question: "Why should I throw away my hard earned SQ?" "Because I said so!!!" is the response of a fool. At least 90% of any Change 'problem' is due to a lack of information regarding the necessity of the Change in question. Organizations not only provide non-informative answers to reasonable questions, they create environments where concerns never see the light of day.
Here is a phenomenon most of us have experienced which supports this view of 'resisters' as active and positively involved in the Change process. How many times has the person most against your Change process, become your greatest supporter once they saw the light?
Which leads us to a powerful strategy. In any target audience, there are people who are 'actively against', 'neutral' and 'positively for' the proposed change. Who, in light of the above observation, should you spend a lot of your time with? With whom do you do everything to ensure the lines of communication remain open? The fact is that the most active resisters are potentially your most positive backers.
Denial
No matter how long you work at this thing called the 'Management of Change' I'm willing to predict 'denial' is the one reaction to Change which will have you climbing the walls in frustration.
First what is 'Denial'? Let's examine a definition most people would offer. "Denial is the act of refusing to accept a Change has occurred." In one sense, this is accurate. A person in 'denial' IS ignoring that their world has changed in some manner. So far so good. The problem with the definition is a subtle one. The word 'refusing' strongly implies the person in 'denial' is choosing to ignore what has happened to their Status Quo. I'd like to suggest, that those in 'denial' are literally oblivious of the change. A more accurate definition is the following; "Someone in denial uses effective and efficient behaviours no longer appropriate to the task."
An example might prove useful here. When I facilitate Change workshops I use an exercise where a blindfolded person has to sort a deck of cards into a particular sequence with the non-verbal assistance of their team. During this amusing little exercise, a curious phenomenon plays itself out time and time again regardless of who makes up the team members, whether they be clerical help or upper level management. The team members will point to
where the blindfolded person should place the next card!
What is even more instructive is this... when I loudly and very sarcastically, (but in a kind hearted and deliberate manner) bring this to the attention of the 'pointer' in question, they nod their head in agreement and cease their useless behaviour.
For about 5 minutes... then they start pointing again... totally oblivious that this behaviour is no longer appropriate to the task. How do you 'solve' this obstacle to Change? Patience... sooner or later they get it...
Chaos
In the beginning there was a Status Quo built upon the foundation of hard earned competencies. Then along came the Foreign Element which destroyed those competencies and thrust the faithful into the depths of 'incompetence' henceforth known as 'Chaos'.
Well the language is a bit flowery, but that's pretty much what happens. The Foreign Element (FE) eradicates competencies and makes us 'incompetent'.
Throughout my career as a 'techie' I've been confronted with this peculiar world view. It is not uncommon for someone sitting down with an application for the first time, to expect to use it properly and then get frustrated when they can't... They feel 'stupid' because they don't already know how to use the product. ( Which explains the success of the line of self help manuals for dummies.)
Of course, some techies aggravate the situation by treating a new user as 'stupid' just because they don't immediately know how to use an application which took a gazillion hours of work to create and contains several thousand functions and not a single useful error message.
This fear of incompetence or being perceived as incompetent is endemic in the corporate world. Proof? How many of your executives attend public courses on computer usage, versus those that demand, and because of their position, receive one on one private training?
While this perception, that we should always be 'competent', is unreasonable, unrealistic and just plain silly.. But it IS a reality we have to cater to if we wish to manage change. On the other hand, at a personal level we can try to change our own response to incompetence.
The first step towards that goal is to pay attention to our own feelings when we undergo change (and recognize we're not that different from others) and constantly ask ourselves if these feelings are reasonable and appropriate.
Integration
There's no other word to describe this phase of the change process except 'sneaky'. No matter how often you go through change, no matter how cautious or observant you become, chances are Integration will get you time and time again.
To explain that statement, it's important to know what I mean when I refer to this thing called 'integration'. Consider the following. You lose someone in your life, and go through a period of grieving. After a time, the pain begins to go away and you become conscious of getting your life back together. You've not arrived at a 'better' place, because you still miss your loved one, but you feel back in control, no longer buffeted by the uncontrollable sense of loss. You feel much better and there's a sense of regaining either your 'strength' or your 'power'.
Then one morning you wake up, and without thinking, roll over and reach for your companion... I could describe the emotions you feel at this point... but is it necessary? You thought you were through this, and now find out you're not. There's a deep sense of despair amplified by your earlier sense of success when you thought you'd put it all behind you.
Another less emotional example. You've been learning to use a word processor now for several months. You're feeling pretty good because you now know the product pretty well. You're doing a mail merge of several hundred letters and as you're stuffing the last one into the last stamped envelope you notice a typo... aargh! Same emotion to a lesser degree. Same sense of going from finally achieving competence, to discovering you still have a ways to go.
Integration is that short emotional phase in the Change process, where once we get a sense we've finally achieved the desired Change we overreact to tiny, inconsequential upsets.
New Status Quo
Finally. We're here. Back, in terms of competence levels, to where we began. Take a breather. Relax. Don't get too comfortable. The next Foreign Element is just around the corner and then the roller coaster ride will start again. Admission? Free. As we rest in this temporary oasis, let's examine the one competency which hardly ever changes. Your ability to learn a new skill. In my experience most people tend to underestimate their ability to learn new skills. Here's a question for you. Could a nine year old perform the tasks you do every day to earn your living?
Could this mythical nine year old drive a car, Fly a plane, write an article, program a computer, till the field, file a document, create an ad, and fix a furnace? Of course the correct answer is yes. With training. The same training you've been receiving since you were nine years old.
I know it sounds like motivational claptrap, but it also happens to be true. The ability to learn is our strongest talent and it's the skill which makes it possible to change, to move from competency to incompetence and back again. We underestimate this strength again and again. Is learning to use a new application or way of doing business really more difficult than learning how to swim or ride a bicycle? In one you run the risk of drowning and in the other the risk of falling off and breaking your face. Using Windows 2000, while difficult, never really threatens any body parts.
End of Part two... Here's part three.
© 2005,
Peter de Jager – Peter is passionate about change, how it affects both
individuals and organizations and allows them to grow and prosper. To contact him, and
host internal seminars on Change Management visit www.technobility.com
For reprint permissions click here.
Resources:
Resources: