“Change is never painful. Only the resistance to change is painful.” Buddha
A recent article by Karl Moore, Ph.D. for Forbes spins a tale about a fictional company, “Inflexco,” that has just acquired a significant new customer. Inflexco’s elated CEO calls a town hall meeting and announces the deal, which will double the company’s sales and profits. He expects his employees to be as excited as he is. Instead, they go out of their way to sabotage the deal and the customer leaves for a competitor. When the mystified CEO asks why his employees would do such a thing, Dr. Moore lays the blame on the limbic brain, the emotional brain that is outside our conscious control. “Change is pain,” he says, equating our opposition to change to the “fight or flight” response that makes us run when faced with a charging animal or a thug with a gun.
While the neuroscientific research on change resistance is fascinating, I deal with change on a practical level every day. Clearly, most people resist change, but I do not believe we are hardwired to sabotage efforts that are in the best interests of ourselves and our companies. At least some—and quite possibly a lot—of change resistance in our corporations is based on intelligent thinking and lessons learned from past experience. To suggest that change resistance is strictly physiological ignores the powerful influence of a company’s culture and context.
In order to explain what—besides human nature and a bias towards negativity—caused the “feelings of fear, skepticism and anxiety” that derailed Inflexco’s project, one needs contextual detail:
- Has Inflexco undertaken this kind of initiative before, with disastrous consequences?
- Does the company have a history of demanding change without communicating honestly or asking employees about needs and obstacles?
- Are the company’s resources, systems, and/or people inadequate to handle a doubling of volume?
- Do employees doubt they will receive the training and support required to be successful?
- Does the reward system discourage employees from adopting behaviors that would help them achieve desired goals?
When it comes to understanding people and change, questions like these are critical. Evidence shows that the way a company has chosen to hire, manage, reward, and communicate with its people can mitigate or exacerbate their resistance to a coming change. Knowing where the obstacles are allows a company to construct an effective change management plan.
Just as it is a mistake to overemphasize automatic behavior, it is wrong to assume that everyone reacts to change in the same way or that only “rank and file” employees resist change. Although their reasons may be different, constituents at every organizational level may be wary of change, including:
Leaders who know how to “do it” one way and have achieved a comfortable degree of success. Change, even to fuel expansion or growth, is perceived as risky. Leaders may believe the status quo is the best way to safeguard their power and position—not to mention the compensation they have become accustomed to.
Mid-level managers who bear the responsibility of promoting a new initiative to the people who work for them, even if no one has asked for their advice in designing the change. At the same time, they may need to alter their management style, do more with less, or train employees to work differently.
Employees who will be required to adopt new work methods, thus giving up control over their jobs and the tasks they know how to perform. They may fear that the company will give them too little time to become proficient and that the outcome of failure will be outright dismissal.
Members of the change team whose issues are twofold: First, they must defend the change to their peers, many of whom are cynical, disgruntled, and apprehensive; and second, when the initiative goes live, they must function as employees and managers who have a personal stake in the post-change world.
Readiness for Change
In advance of any major initiative, an organization must determine how prepared it is for change and how capable it is of successfully implementing that change. The SteelBridge Solutions change management methodology recommends assessing organizational readiness using a combination of interviews, focus groups, and surveys. A baseline assessment will identify organizational strengths as well as barriers to change, informing the change plan and related communication efforts. Repeating the process at intervals helps to gauge progress and to head off new issues or obstacles.
A change readiness assessment should probe the following major areas:
- The case for change. Do employees understand why change is necessary? Do they believe that the change is important to achieving the company’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives?
- The vision for change. Is it clear what the new organization will look like? Are the benefits unassailable when compared to the pre-change organization?
- Leadership alignment. Do leaders demonstrate their commitment on a regular basis? Do they behave in ways that exemplify and support the change?
- Capability for change. Do employees believe that leaders are proficient at managing and effecting change? Do they trust leaders to deliver on their promises?
- Communication. Do employees at all levels know what will be required of them personally? Has the organization been clear and specific regarding how their lives and work will change?
- Employee Readiness. Do employees believe they will be provided with the resources they need in order to change successfully? Do they believe they can count on the organization’s commitment and support?
Surveys in particular are valuable tools to solicit this information from large populations. Readiness can then be analyzed by organizational unit, department, level, or job group. Pockets of support may be leveraged as champions or pilot groups; areas of resistance can be brought around by applying appropriate change levers such as customized communications, specialized training, one-on-one coaching, and targeted involvement.
As we have said before, change is hard. It is even harder if an organization hasn’t taken time to get to know itself. A readiness assessment is a meaningful and logical place to start.