Lean Musings and other stuff...

Change "Management"

Corporate Buzzword Bingo (a game we all play in some way) has so many well-known phrases that we all collectively “eye roll” every time they’re used. Synergy, Paradigm, Agility, Business Acumen, and it goes on and on and on….. Surely one of the all-time Hall of Famers has to be the term “Change Management”. You guys know me by now, I like words. I like counting on the intentionality of their use so I can understand the writers meaning.

Change Management - the application of a structured process and set of tools for leading the people side of change to achieve a desired outcome.

• Assumes a preexisting structure is available to apply before the change happens
• Assumes the tools are understood and have proven effective
• Assumes a focus on the people in a process going thru change
• Assumes a clearly defined/aligned on set of “desires” against a clearly defined outcome

Obviously, you can google a wide array of definitions, but I’d suggest each would be a combination of assumptions around helping people better react to and adopt change.

What isn’t so obvious, but can happen in the early stages of change, is that some can fall into something called “association”. Simply put, association is when change is introduced to someone and based on the topic, environment, or the people involved, they can inaccurately place the impact of a prior experience on the one being presented now.?Unfortunately, since change is often first experienced as vague and happening “to” someone, the reaction gets escalated to the level of a threat. Because of the ability to “associate”, this new change now creates the same reaction as a past traumatic experience. If we are willing to plan for and understand that premise, it increases the likelihood of communicating successfully to one of four established responses people have to a perceived “threat” or change. This leads to a better chance of actually “managing” the change.

When I use the word “threaten” it isn’t always something as definitive as being in some life-threatening event. More often than not, it looks more like a new change introducing the perceived loss of safety, security, comfort, or prestige. In the world of corporate America, this is especially true. Hence, the need to better understand and plan for these responses in advance of any planned change….

Flee – Can I escape?

Reaction: If I can quickly get far enough away from the threat, I might be able to escape and avoid interacting with it entirely

Change Management Tactic: Focus on reducing isolating behaviors by leveraging existing relationships or connecting the changes to areas of safety and security. This requires you to pre-identify who those trusted voices might be and what associated topics or activities can be used create a safe bridge between the change and something that is adjacent to the change and not changing.

Goal: Minimize or prevent “escaping” as the only viable option so that they can move past the initial reaction and stay engaged in the change.

Fight – Can I overpower it?

Reaction: If I attack the threat before it attacks me, I might be able to weaken or discredit it to reduce or eliminate its threat to me

Change Management Tactic: Realize that this is an attempt to use conflict as an avoidance technique. Because this is an extreme example of setting boundaries by escalating straight to conflict, you can look for opportunities to deescalate by not matching the energy, using the same words they did in affirmation statements to let them know you recognize they are having a strong reaction, and asking clarification questions about which part of what was said or done that is creating the reaction. Because conflict is being used as an avoidance technique, at a minimum don’t be drawn into the conflict or try to delegitimize it. Lastly, since the fight response is a high energy response, when possible, try to create movement – a walk, change of location, or even something as simple as backing up in a chair and taking a deep breath.

Goal: Shorten the length of time to move through the initial urge “fight” so healthy and constructive boundaries can be set.

Freeze – Can I make it lose interest?

Reaction: If I shut down, go dark, or just “disappear”, I might be able to keep the threat from noticing or become disinterested in me

Change Management Tactic: One of the most difficult responses to reengage, this is an over expression of what many times is an appropriate “pause” to assess and think. Because that healthy reflective pause has ballooned to a full mental “shut down”, finding ways to create a safe path back to connection is critical. It can look like a shift to asking questions about a safe topic like sports, hobbies, or even a favorite meal to temporarily shift the conversation to a “safe harbor”. It can also look like an acknowledgement of the distress that’s been created and affirming that being concerned or needing time to assess is a totally normal response and should be honored to allow time for both.

Goal: Keep them engaged as they transition through the initial reaction of “shutting down” before it gets locked in, while allowing a healthy period of valid adjustment.

Comply – Can I “agree” my way out of this?

Reaction: If I can take on the most compliant response, the threat will approve of me and move on

Change Management Tactic: This response is recognizable from true agreement and support because any attempt to engage and gain specific agreement results on upfront compliance with no interest in detail or clarification. It can go so far as to have the response constantly shift to questions directed back at the threat to keep determining if their happy or pleased - redirection through seeking to please, i.e. “as long as your happy, I’m happy”. Because complete compliance is being used to encourage the threat to show approval and move on, affirming the curiosity in their point of view and value can create enough security for true engagement. Remembering this response is using blind compliance to likely hide areas of disagreement and conflict, it helps to continue to both verbally acknowledge the value of their perspective and ask open ended questions for richer response than “yes/no”.

Goal: Get past the surface by building trust and asking open ended questions that help expose the worry behind the “yes”

Because a traumatic response can be caused by the ability of people to associate moments, words, and environments with other instances where they suffered, lost, or experienced some kind of pain, truly working through the trauma responses is complicated work for qualified professionals. I’m not suggesting I’m one or that you should be either, but I am suggesting that understanding how others might respond negatively to change through these lenses should inform how we engage, when we engage, and how we support them during the change. That’s an activity better planned beforehand than as it actually happens.

Change Management requires real empathy, perception, and planning in advance – all the qualities of you!?