Introduction

Life and work are full with change. When organizations become involved in change, many barriers impede progress. Understanding these barriers can help you address them productively. Difference between and among people leads to difference in how transitions are managed.

Hierarchical Differences

Most organizations have at least three levels of hierarchy executives, managers, and workers.

Executives usually initiate the change. Managers get charged with implementing the changes, through the workers. Executives typically underestimate the difficulties and time required to implement change on the front line.

Managers get heat from above to implement faster and from below in the form of resistance. Thus, middle managers often experience the most stress in a change process. "Good" middle managers hesitate to complain about this stress until it reaches excessive levels.

Executives can help by acknowledging the stress and their willingness to help. Even if no specific ways to help are identified, the acknowledged willingness will reduce the stress!

A good deal of difficulty in organizational change efforts rests in the classic division of labor: executives design and delegate; workers implement. If you think of the division as a train going through a tunnel, you can imagine that when the executives in the engine car break into the sunshine (or at least can see the light at the end), the workers remain surrounded by close, dank darkness. Leaders who understand these differences have an even shot at getting the whole organization into the sunshine.

Exciting new ideas-a potential new building, a major change in direction-or crisis-tend to isolate the leaders of an organization. In order to concentrate, leaders may disconnect from day-to-day operations. This creates even more confusion in the caboose!

Style Differences

Differences in perceiving change within the hierarchy are increased by differences in learning and leadership styles. The creative, risk-taking entrepreneur- style may exemplify the if I think it, it must be so style of management. This leader will quickly become impatient.

The administrative-style is conservative, stable, controlling, and risk adverse. Administrator-styles believe change should be slow, if at all. No matter how much progress is made, they will backslide and return to past behavior at the slightest provocation.

A results-oriented producer-style works quickly, relentlessly on a problem until it is solved and the desired results are delivered. Because the producer may work single mindedly on the problem, new data may be seen as an interference, as derailing the project rather than enriching the information about it.

And, finally, the integrator-style has relationships with other people foremost in mind. Is everyone informed? How will decisions affect co-workers? Integrators work slowly, touching bases frequently with everyone involved in the project, bringing people up to speed but always at a speed slower than the producer or entrepreneur-styles.

Style differences create frustration and confusion between peers and they become magnified with each step up the hierarchy. Understanding and respect for these differences goes a long way toward managing change in organizations.

DABBA: Denial, Arguing, Blaming, Bargaining, and Acceptance

People usually have a good definition of what success at work means and how to achieve it. Success is generally linked to your position in the hierarchy, the number of people who report to you, the amount of money you make and control, and your access to information. In addition, managers and workers develop a range of knowledge, skills, and strategies for doing their jobs. Most people define themselves at work through their position and their knowledge.

Organizational change can strip this definition away. Even if not required to change personally, the increased level of anxiety rampant in organizational change efforts threatens everyone's stability. The less control you have over the changes, the higher the anxiety.

The difficult paradox, of course, is that in order to accommodate the new, people have to let go of the old. This feels unsafe. Unfortunately, holding on to the old prevents movement to the new.

The process of change experienced in the work place parallels the process documented by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in her work on death and dying, a specific and dramatic type of loss and letting go. These stages are outlined below.

Stage One: Denial

At first, we deny that change or accommodation to it is necessary. If we block or slow the pace of change, it feeds our denial. When someone dies, the funeral ceremony functions as a way to break through the natural denial we experience.

At work, death of the old ways isn't usually as dramatic as the death of a loved-one and we don't have ceremonies to commemorate change in the work place. Denial can easily persist. This stubborn persistence often prevents the organization from addressing the need for change and leads to closed public spaces, reduced programming, dangerously deferred maintenance, and layoffs. Paradoxically, those laid off may change faster than those who stay behind.

We distinguish between change and transition: change occurs outside of the individual; transition occurs within.

Leaders can contribute to the change process by doing things to dramatically symbolize the death of effectiveness of the old ways. For example:

• One museum director invited all the staff to attend every board meeting to better understand how fund-raising in their community had changed in the past decade;
• A chief financial officer created a four-week class for all staff members-guards to curators-to teach everyone about the budget and the meaning of the numbers;

Stage Two: Anger

The emotions of anger and resentment signal the passing of denial. If the organizational culture does not accommodate anger, it may remain under the table. At this point, the leader can guide the process by encouraging a structured "gripe" session to allow people to let off steam. As long as steam builds without an outlet, the organization won't move through the anger. Staying stuck may convert the anger into resistance. A structured "gripe" session, usually requires a skilled facilitator, acknowledges the anger as an appropriate and necessary part of the process.

State Three: Blame

People seek to direct their anger at someone or something, often the leaders of or consultants to the change effort. Expecting it, and learning to separate useless blaming from valuable feedback is the job of the leader at this stage. When blaming, the blamer potentially takes on the role of a victim who shifts responsibility to someone else. A victim mentality manifest as helplessness and hopelessness. The blamer does not take responsibility for what has happened and, to that extent, becomes an impediment to change. Blaming also creates unproductive conflict which deflects energy and focus from the change effort.

The negative impact of blaming can be reduced when people know in advance that to blame is a common response. Everyone can work toward not taking it personally. Leaders can assist by identifying blaming behavior as part of the process of what people do in the midst of change. More importantly, leaders need to model how to manage the blame: with acceptance. Leaders can refocus managers and encourage them to accept the blaming behavior as part of the process.

Stage Four: Bargaining

Bargaining begins when some, but not all, of the change is accepted as inevitable. People attempt to hold on to some of the old ways:

• I'll accept the new position in the education department, but I'll still want to do some of my curatorial work.

• I understand that the museum needs to better serve children and families, but I'll still find ways to produce the poetry and intellectual series.

Bargaining, like the other stages, must be encouraged by the leaders, but it is also critical not to begin bargaining if the individuals remain entrenched in anger or blaming. All levels of the hierarchy can facilitate the change by holding fast to the desired results while being flexible on the methods to achieve the results. Bargaining allows individuals to reclaim control over the change which releases energy and builds commitment to success.

State Five: Acceptance

Almost imperceptibly, the change will be accepted. People will look back and see that through a series of many, many small details the results have been achieved.

DABBA-denial, anger, blaming, bargaining, and acceptance-is experienced, more or less, by all of us when we face a significant loss. The stages may be blurred or transposed. Sometimes you'll be able to identify these stages clearly in yourself and others. At other times, it won't be obvious.

If management pushes too hard, or uses the wrong techniques, people can easily get stuck and dig in deeper rather than move through the stage toward acceptance. If the leaders are unresponsive or clumsy to the stages, the change process will be further eroded by frustration, covert anger, blaming, resistance, and feelings of helplessness.

Guidelines for leaders to help people though DABBA:

1. Manage the change; facilitate the transition. Don't neglect either.

2. Don't be surprised when you see DABBA. Expect and encourage each stage.

3. To move through a stage you must experience it. Avoiding any stage will result in its persistence. Experiencing a stage means engaging in a dialogue about it. And many involve significant emotional discharge. Acknowledging the discharge, but not reacting to it must be everyone's goal. To the extent that people can do this, they can assist others in the transition which eventually enables everyone to let go. If substantive issues surface, respond. Listen, clarify, acknowledge. Don't discount, argue, or sell your own point.

4. People will pass through stages differently. Some stages will feel easy, but others will be agonizing.

5. Human emotions underlie each stage. Most managers are inexperienced and uncomfortable with emotional intensity at work. We avoid emotions at work or discount them. If emotion does rear its uncomfortable head, we too often try to move on, get rational, and disengage. Thus, we impede or block the very change process we have launched. Managers can facilitate the change process by developing their own comfort level in dealing with the intense emotions of each change.

During organizational change, uncertainty and ambiguity rise dramatically. As the velocity of change increases, the anxiety level increases exponentially. Increasing communications can reduce anxiety, but to be effective it, too, must increase exponentially.

Unfortunately, the reverse often happens. If the executives are unsure themselves of what is happening, they become anxious and preoccupied, and they under-communicate. This behavior is perceived as secretive, at best, or conspiracy, at worst. Middle mangers feel out of the loop. As a result, their anxiety level rises to a level somewhere above that of the executives. Middle managers will model their leaders and fail to communicate with the workers.

Communication Myths

This behavior is perceived as secretive at best and conspiracy at worst. From the top down, as communication dwindles, anxiety and resistance mounts. Now is the time for information to flow in all directions to increase the feeling of unity and maximize the power and usefulness of communication. Four myths of communication should be considered by the leadership team as they plan for change.

1. They can't handle it. "They" will do better (in work performance and morale) by being included rather than excluded. Often, "we" think "they" cannot handle it, because we project our own anxiety.

2. We'll be open when we finalize the decisions. Early inclusion of everyone potentially effected is a significant statement in itself. Communication voids get filled with gossip, rumor, innuendo, and what we call factoids, always more destructive than the truth. Waiting until everything is decided excludes employee contributions on how to achieve the desired results. When management announces its decisions without having involved the employees, resistance will be higher.

3. Send a memo. The written word generally communicates routine information well. Communicating change which affects people's work life requires more. Few leaders can write as well as they speak and even if writing is your forte, it can't convey the nonverbal content and it eliminates the opportunity for dialogue.

4. I told them. Communicating isn't simply a matter of sending the message; you must take responsibility to see that it has been received. The more dramatic the change, the more ongoing dialogue is needed.

What can the leader do?

1. Acknowledge the stress publicly, openly, and repeatedly. Do not deny, discount, or ignore it.

2. Ask for help solving problems. Listen, learn what staff and managers believe will help reduce the stress, and respond.

3. Defuse. Schedule structured, positive sessions that will allow people to blow off steam. Acknowledging the useful feedback from these sessions will help people through DABBA.

4. Dialogue. When tension crosses boundaries (between departments, sites, functions) involve all sides in regular, structured dialogue to learn about the issues, acknowledge the differences, and solve problems.

5. Be there. The top leaders must be visible. Middle managers do not have the authority or perspective to fully manage an organizational change process.

6. Suit up in Teflon. Everyone, especially the change leaders, must stay away from a mutual blaming contest. Rise above the temptation to personally participate in blaming as it de-powers the individual and throws up barriers to the change effort.

7. Communicate. Repeatedly, in every way possible. Check for understanding.

8. Assist employees. Managing well is a sophisticated process. Many organizations get by in normal circumstances without a whole lot of management. During a period of change, however, an increase in leadership and management is required. This may be particularly difficult for workers who have developed a set of technical skills specific to their field of work. People who build careers within a focus area of professional expertise often have had little time for management training. Acquiring these management skills in the midst of a stressful change process isn't easy.

Summary

Acknowledgment and inclusion constitute the two major strategies necessary for better transitions. Acknowledgment comes from public, open, and frequent recognition of the change and the turmoil it causes.

Inclusion preserves the leader's authority and encourages dialogue among and between those effected by the proposed change. Careful listening builds mutual respect. People eventually come to believe that their concerns have been aired and incorporated into the process. This creates a sense of control and contributes to the momentum of the change process.