"And oh the change is gonna do me good."

"And oh the change is gonna do me good." 

When a change occurs at work, not everyone is singing along with Elton John. Some may be screaming at the top of their lungs; while others may be unusually quiet.

I observe that most people respond to a change on a case-by-case basis. Depending on what the change is, their reaction may vary. I am very much like this. For instance, when it comes to changes in smart phone technology, I'm not the first in line to get the latest gadget. I've just started to master the one I got a year ago. Yet, other changes excite me and I'm quick to jump on board with enthusiasm.

Although, some people are a bit more predictable in how they respond to most or all changes. I have worked with some employees who have a pretty consistent response to every single change they face. For example, a person I worked with years ago was predictably resistance to any change, big or small. If a change was coming, I knew how she was going to respond.

Whether a person reacts to change in a predictable fashion or in a varied way, the most common change reactions I observe are the following: silence, support, or sabotage.

The task at hand, no matter what the individual reaction, is to foster the adoption of change.

Adoption applies to individuals. Diffusion is level of adoption in the collective group. You've got to reach diffusion beyond the critical mass - one person at a time, over time - to succeed with the change. So, your leadership approach may need to be tailored to the individuals, based on their reaction to the change. With your actions aimed at encouraging and supporting their adoption of the change.

silence

What if you aren't hearing anything from an employee in response to the change? Silence is a pretty tricky response. It may simply be that they are quietly adjusting to the change. Yet, silence may indicate a form of passive-aggressive resistance. Or, it may even be a sign that the person isn't even aware of the change.

A leader's response to silence? Open up the conversation! Seek these people out. You've got to open up the dialogue and end the silence.

Ask them questions such as:

●     What's going well with the change?

●     Are your struggling in any way with the change?

●     Who can I recognize for helping you adjust to the change?

●     Do you need any more information, education, or training related to the change?

●     What might need to be tweaked or adjusted to make the change more successful?

●     Are you seeing positive results from the change?

●     Based on this change, what suggestions do you have for how we make future changes?

●     As a leader of this change, is there anything I can do for you?

Seek out those who are silent and ask questions. Get the conversation, and adoption, started.

support

Don't you love it when you've got individuals that support a change? While we would desire this to be the majority of those affected by a change, it is unrealistic to expect that this is going to be a big group - at least early on in the change process.

Years ago, "gaining and reaching consensus" was thought to be a primary role of leaders. The objective was to gain a majority consensus on a change before even moving forward. Well, this is an outdated approach to the role and work of leaders. If we wait for majority consensus before we initiate a change we will always be behind in adjusting to industry changes or innovating to be a leader in the industry. We've got to innovate and initiate change when there is a small number of people initially on board with the change.

The work of Everett Rogers dates back to the early 1960s supports that during a change effort, there is only a small percentage of people who adopt the change early on. In my two-plus decades of leadership, I've come to appreciate the relevance of his work still today. If you're not familiar with his work, here's a snip it from Wikipedia:

"Rogers proposes that adopters of any new innovation or idea can be categorized as innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and laggards (16%), based on the mathematically based Bell curve. These categories, based on standard deviations from the mean of the normal curve, provide a common language for innovation researchers. Each adopter's willingness and ability to adopt an innovation depends on their awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. People can fall into different categories for different innovations—a farmer might be an early adopter of mechanical innovations, but a late majority adopter of biological innovations.

When graphed, the rate of adoption formed what came to typify the Diffusion of Innovations model, a logistic curve). The graph shows a cumulative percentage of adopters over time–slow at the start, more rapid as adoption increases, then leveling off until only a small percentage of laggards have not adopted."

The innovators and early adopters, as defined by Rogers, are your initial supporters. So, early on in a change, you may have about 16% of your workforce (the innovators and early adopter) supporting the change. This volume of support will not, however, be enough to sustain the change. Yet, these are your people who can be very helpful in reaching the individuals who will make up the early majority, late majority, and laggards.

One approach to your supporters is to engage them as "super users" or "champions" - publicly declare who these people are that are succeeding with the change. Assign them official roles in assisting others to adopt the change. Tell their stories of how they are succeeding with the change and the positive results they are experiencing.

Each one of these supports has a circle of influence - people that they can reach out to in regard to the change. Your supporters can be engaged as your "volunteer army" to reach the masses. Gather them together to determine an organized effort to continue the adoption of change.

You're supporters are also great people to rely on related to the study of the change. They can provide valuable feedback related to the post-change study/evaluation phase. They can help in recognizing the adjustments that may need to be made to make the change even more successful than originally planned. Gathering these supporters in focused groups or meeting with them 1:1 (....maybe even using the same questions as you did with the "silent" responders).

sabotage

Maybe sabotage is too strong a word. What is meant here is a very loud negative reaction to change. But sometimes, from my experience, I would say that it might be the right word. Usually this loudness is in the form of questions such as "who's stupid idea was this?" or "how did they think that this was better than what we were doing?"

A loud negative reaction is positive in one way in my opinion: If the person is being negative, at least you know that they are aware of the change and their brain is processing the implications of the change. Even if they don't see the positives of the change - yet - they are aware of, and processing, information about the change.

The most common time for loud negative reactions is right after the change is announced or the "go live" date has arrived. I had a colleague describe this loud negative reaction as "lady with hair on fire." One person starts with this reaction, and then pretty soon, other people have their hair on fire too.

When I think about "ladies with hair on fire," I recall from years ago a technology change that impacted hospital unit clerks. They previously had to "stamp" every page of a paper medical record with an addressograph card that has the patients name and important identifying information. The machine they used was like those old credit card machines in which the cashier would make an imprint of your credit card. I'm guessing that thousands of times a day in a twelve hour shift, these clerks would be stamping pages with this machine.

Well, new technology and the movement to electronic medical records, necessitated the switch away from addressograph cards to bar code labels on the minimal amount of pages that had not been converted to electronic copies. So, a new machine would spit out a string of bar code labels that could be affixed to the applicable pages of the few remaining pages of a paper medical record.

Well, the day this change went live, I went to round with the unit clerks in the various patient care units to check in on their response to this change. Oh my. Hair on fire. Everywhere! It started with one clerk (and I could have predicted it as she definitely was someone I knew to consistently react in this way to any and all changes). Pretty soon, all of the clerks were begging and pleading for their old addressograph machines back.

As an outsider to this role, I couldn't believe it. Clearly, the bar code labels were simpler, less time consuming, and higher quality. Yet, negativity abounded. There was only talk (very loud and negative talk) about how this couldn't and wouldn't work.

Fortunately, in the case of most technology or equipment changes, there is no turning back on the change no matter how much hair is on fire.

Six months later, as I could have predicted, I asked a few of them, "would you like your old addressograph machines back?" They laughed at themselves recalling their immediate negative reaction months ago to this change. They recalled how they banded together to try to prove that this new technology was not going to work. They even had a clear goal that they would get their old machines back in the coming weeks. Yet, six months later, there is no way now that they would want to go back to the addressograph days.

In regard to a sabotage-type response, one approach may be just simply "time and patience." Let these individuals take the time to explore the change - they will watch how others are adjusting and succeeding with the change. They will maybe dabble with it a little bit and start to see the upside to the change.

By providing space, time and patience, I don't necessary mean that you ignore people who respond in this way. There may be some pearls hidden in their loud and negative response. Through all the noise, there may be something YOU need to hear regarding the change. Maybe there is something that isn't working right with the change. When you listen, and respond, you may be able to not just bring this person on board, but a host of others.

However, if there is outright sabotage in the form of destruction or work stoppage, you'll obviously have to intervene. Often, a one-on-one conversation that includes calling out the behavior, pointing out its impact, and clearly stating the expectation may be enough to de-escalate the behavior. You may have to elevate this conversation to include a plan to more closely monitor their behavior for a period of time and communicate consequences if the behavior continues.

other responses

A fourth response, which is quite rare could be labeled "self-deselection." What I mean by this is -- the person leaves the job or organization because of the change. I have seen people respond in this way. One such example was a physician who left the practice of medicine in response to the change to an electronic health record. He just wasn't going there. He is now a farmer.

Through change efforts that you've been involved in, maybe you've witnessed other types of responses. I'd love to hear about that in the comments.

other tactics to support change

In general, with all changes and all types of responses, below are some tactics that leaders of change should be mindful of:

1. "Do it with them, not to them." While every person affected by a change cannot be on the team that is innovating the change, the key stakeholders should be represented.
2. Communicate the WHY and connect back to the WHY often. I like the tactic of visual "why boards" - a place to highlight why a change is needed. The "how" can often be easier when the "why" is understood.
3. Study/Adjust - Refresh/Re-Inspire. Take time throughout the change process to circle back to activities of studying the results of the change and adjusting the plans based on what you learn. Having to adjust doesn't mean you failed. This is a normal part of a great change process. Plan, do, study, adjust. And for very important changes, you may have to refresh/re-inspire the change for years to come.
4. Don't give up. All changes look a bit like failure early on and in the middle. Keep going. When negativity screams at you, and positivity around the change is only whispering, you're going to second guess yourself. Is this change wrong? Should we abandon it? When organizations give up, over and over again, on changes, it make each future change even harder.
5. You don't have to have it all figured out to Just Start! If you get stuck in planning a needed change, you delay the start of adoption and diffusion. Since you'll be circling back and change adjust and build on the change, the best advice may be to just start.

Rarely is a leader in a role to simply maintain the status quo. As leaders we are called to get results and move the organization forward. That will not happen without the ability to lead change. One necessary skill is the ability to gauge and respond to the varied reactions that individuals and groups have to change. This is a skill to master. Just Start!

About the Author

Sue Tetzlaff, RN, RHIA, MHA, FACHE is a strategist and coach on a mission to equip and inspire positive change in healthcare. As the co-founder/principal of Capstone Leadership Solutions, Inc, she co-leads a team of transformational experts and advisors that work in partnership with healthcare organizations to plan and execute transformational change.

Learn more about our approach to elevating culture and results while moving forward on big strategies by contacting us at: www.capstoneleadership.net