Change management

Managers often make the mistake of assuming that once a change is started, that
employees will see that it is going to take place, and get on side. This is rarely the
case. Because change causes fear, a sense of loss of the familiar, etc., it takes some
time for employees to a) understand the meaning of the change and b) commit to
the change in a meaningful way. It is important to understand that people tend to go
through stages in their attempts to cope with change. Understanding that there are
normal progressions helps change leaders avoid under-managing change or over-
reacting to resistance.

As we go through the stages, you will probably find many similarities with the
process a person goes through with the loss of a loved one.

Stage I: Denial

An early strategy that people use to cope with change is to deny that it is happening,
or to deny that it will continue or last. Common responses during this stage are:

"I've heard these things before. Remember last year they announced the new
customer initiative? Nothing ever happened, and this will pass."

"It's just another hair-brained idea from the top."

"I bet this will be like everything else. The head honcho will be real gung-ho but in
about six months everything will be back to normal. You'll see."

"I'll believe it when I see it."

People in the denial stage are trying to avoid dealing with the fear and uncertainty of
prospective change. They are hoping they won't have to adapt.

The denial stage is difficult because it is hard to involve people in planning for the
future, when they will not acknowledge that the future is going to be any different
than the present.

People tend to move out of the denial stage when they see solid, tangible indicators
that things ARE different. Even with these indicators some people can remain in
denial for some time.

Stage II: Anger & Resistance

When people can no longer deny that something is or has happened, they tend to
move into a state of anger, accompanied by covert and/or over resistance. This
stage is the most critical with respect to the success of the change implementation.
Leadership is needed to help work through the anger, and to move people to the
next stage. If leadership is poor, the anger at this stage may last indefinitely,
perhaps much longer than even the memory of the change itself.
People in this stage tend to say things like:

"Who do they think they are? Jerking us around"

"Why are they picking on us?"

"What's so damned bad about the way things are?

"How could [you] the boss allow this to happen?

Actually people say far stronger things, but we need to be polite.

Stage III: Exploration & Acceptance

This is the stage where people begin to get over the hump. They have stopped
denying, and while they may be somewhat angry, the anger has moved out of the
spotlight. They have a better understanding of the meaning of the change and are
more willing to explore further, and to accept the change. They act more open-
mindedly, and are now more interested in planning around the change and being
participants in the process.

People in this stage say things like:

"Well, I guess we have to make the best of it."

"Maybe we can get through this."

"We need to get on with business."

Stage IV: Commitment

This is the payoff stage, where people commit to the change, and are willing to work
towards making it succeed. They know it is a reality, and at this point people have
adapted sufficiently to make it work. While some changes will never get
endorsement from employees (downsizing, for example) employees at this stage will
commit to making the organization effective within the constraints that have resulted
from the change.

Concluding Points

Let's conclude with some key points:

1) The change process takes a considerable amount of time to stabilize and to work.
Don't undermanage by assuming it will "work itself out" and don't over-react when
faced with reasonable resistance.

2) Worry if there is no resistance. If the change is significant it means that people

are hiding their reactions. Eventually the reactions that are not dealt with will fester
and can destroy the organization. Likewise with anger.
When change is imposed (as in downsizing scenarios), clearly the most important
determinant of "getting through the swamp", is the ability of leadership to...well,
lead. The literature on the subject indicates that the nature of the change is
secondary to the perceptions that employees have regarding the ability, competence,
and credibility of senior and middle management.

If you are to manage change effectively, you need to be aware that there are three
distinct times zones where leadership is important. We can call these Preparing For
the Journey, Slogging Through The Swamp, and After Arrival. We will look more
carefully at each of these.

The Role of Leadership

In an organization where there is faith in the abilities of formal leaders, employees

will look towards the leaders for a number of things. During drastic change times,
employees will expect effective and sensible planning, confident and effective
decision-making, and regular, complete communication that is timely. Also during
these times of change, employees will perceive leadership as supportive, concerned
and committed to their welfare, while at the same time recognizing that tough
decisions need to be made. The best way to summarize is that there is a climate of
trust between leader and the rest of the team. The existence of this trust, brings
hope for better times in the future, and that makes coping with drastic change much
easier.

In organizations characterized by poor leadership, employees expect nothing

positive. In a climate of distrust, employees learn that leaders will act in
indecipherable ways and in ways that do not seem to be in anyone's best interests.
Poor leadership means an absence of hope, which, if allowed to go on for too long,
results in an organization becoming completely nonfunctioning. The organization
must deal with the practical impact of unpleasant change, but more importantly,
must labor under the weight of employees who have given up, have no faith in the
system or in the ability of leaders to turn the organization around.

Leadership before, during and after change implementation is THE key to getting
through the swamp. Unfortunately, if haven't established a track record of effective
leadership, by the time you have to deal with difficult changes, it may be too late.

Preparing For The Journey

It would be a mistake to assume that preparing for the journey takes place only after
the destination has been defined or chosen. When we talk about preparing for the
change journey, we are talking about leading in a way that lays the foundation or
groundwork for ANY changes that may occur in the future. Preparing is about
building resources, by building healthy organizations in the first place. Much like
healthy people, who are better able to cope with infection or disease than unhealthy
people, organization that are healthy in the first place are better able to deal with
change.

As a leader you need to establish credibility and a track record of effective decision
making, so that there is trust in your ability to figure out what is necessary to bring
the organization through.
Slogging Through The Swamp

Leaders play a critical role during change implementation, the period from the
announcement of change through the installation of the change. During this middle
period the organization is the most unstable, characterized by confusion, fear, loss of
direction, reduced productivity, and lack of clarity about direction and mandate. It
can be a period of emotionalism, with employees grieving for what is lost, and
initially unable to look to the future.

During this period, effective leaders need to focus on two things. First, the feelings
and confusion of employees must be acknowledged and validated. Second, the
leader must work with employees to begin creating a new vision of the altered
workplace, and helping employees to understand the direction of the future. Focusing
only on feelings, may result in wallowing. That is why it is necessary to begin the
movement into the new ways or situations. Focusing only on the new vision may
result in the perception that the leader is out of touch, cold and uncaring. A key part
of leadership in this phase is knowing when to focus on the pain, and when to focus
on building and moving into the future.

After Arrival

In a sense you never completely arrive, but here we are talking about the period
where the initial instability of massive change has been reduced. People have
become less emotional, and more stable, and with effective leadership during the
previous phases, are now more open to locking in to the new directions, mandate
and ways of doing things.

This is an ideal time for leaders to introduce positive new change, such as
examination of unwieldy procedures or Total Quality Management. The critical thing
here is that leaders must now offer hope that the organization is working towards
being better, by solving problems and improving the quality of work life. While the
new vision of the organization may have begun while people were slogging through
the swamp, this is the time to complete the process, and make sure that people buy
into it, and understand their roles in this new organization.

Conclusion

Playing a leadership role in the three phases is not easy. Not only do you
have a responsibility to lead, but as an employee yourself, you have to
deal with your own reactions to the change, and your role in it.
However, if you are ineffective in leading change, you will bear a very
heavy personal load. Since you are accountable for the performance of
your unit, you will have to deal with the ongoing loss of productivity
that can result from poorly managed change, not to mention the
potential impact on your own enjoyment of your job.

The Effects of Change On The Manager

One of the least mentioned effects of change relates to how it affects the manager
leading that change, and his or her ability to undertake the leadership role. We have
already talked about the effects of change on the individual employee, and of course
managers are subject to the same reactions, resistances and strains. Some types of
change, such as restructuring, or downsizing can put considerable strain on the
leaders of an organization.

Stress, Stress & More Stress

One primary concern regarding change is the stress it imposes on those undergoing
the change. Managers, because they have obligations to their staff, not only have to
deal with change as employees but also need to carry some of the concerns of their
staffs. In the case of downsizing, the stress levels can be extremely high, because
the manager is charged with conveying very upsetting information.

Stress is part of the job, but in times of change, it is critical that you recognize that it
may cause you to act in ways that are less effective than usual. As with anything
connected with change, the major concern is not short term but long term. If your
stress levels result in marked loss of effectiveness, the risk is that a vicious cycle will
be set up, where ineffective leadership results in creating more long term problems,
which increases your stress, which reduces your effectiveness even more.

Avoidance -- A Common Response

A common response to unpleasant change is to ignore the situation. Avoidance can

take many forms. Most commonly, the avoiding manager plays only a minimal role
in moving the organization through the swamp. After announcing the change and
doing the minimum required, the manager "hides" from the change, through
delegation, or attending to other work. This tactic involves treating things as
"business as usual".

The outcomes of this tactic can be devastating. By avoiding situations, the manager
abdicates any leadership role, when staff needs it most, during and after significant
change. In addition, the avoidance results in the manager becoming out of touch
with the people and realities of the organization.

While avoidance serves a need for the manager in the short run, it destroys the
manager's credibility, and results in poor decisions. The long term consequence of
such action is that the organization tends to deteriorate in terms of morale,
effectiveness and productivity. Sometimes this deterioration is irreversable.

Denial -- Another Ineffective Tactic

Sometimes the manager deals with change by denying its impact. Usually, the
denying manager takes a very logical approach to change. Decisions get made,
systems are put in place, or new procedures are developed. Unfortunately, this
"logical" approach denies the impact of change on the people in the organization.
The denying manager tends to refuse to understand "what the big deal is", and
shows little empathy with employees in the organization.

As with avoidance the denying tactic tends to drop the manager's credibility and
destroy any personal loyalty on the part of employees.
Key Points

1) Managers are put under stress by change, and that stress, if mishandled can
result in loss of managerial effectiveness. Managers need to be alert to the signs of
stress upon their performance.

2) A common management tactic is to avoid involvement in change when that

involvement is unpleasant. The affects of this withdrawal can be lethal to the
organization and to the manager.

3) Another common tactic is denial of the effects of change. Managers who do this
tend to under- estimate the impact of the change, and demonstrate an inability to
respond to employees' emotional reactions to change.

Influence Of The Responsive Manager

The responsive manager tends to succeed by building bonds of respect and trust with
those around him/her. Staff respond positively to responsive managers; they work
more diligently, work to help the manager and the organization succeed, and will go
the extra mile when necessary. That is because responsive managers act consistent
with the principle that their jobs are to help their staff do their jobs. So, a basic
inter-dependence emerges based on behaviours that show concern, respect and
trust.

Responsive managers also influence those above them in the hierarchy. Because
responsive managers have the ability to read and act upon the needs of their
"bosses", they are perceived as helpful and reliable, or in a simple way, very useful.
This allows them to get the "ear" of people above them in the system, and further
helps get things done when needed.

Contrast this with the limited influence of the UNresponsive manager. The
unresponsive manager is restricted in influence because those around him/her do not
respect or trust them to look out for their welfare. Influence is more limited to the
use of power coming from the formal position, and fear, a motivational component
that is hard to sustain over time. Unresponsive managers tend to be perceived as
self-interested, or at best uninterested in the needs of those around them. They also
tend to be perceived by those above them as less reliable and less useful due to their
focus on empire building, organization protection, and self-interest, rather than
getting done what needs to be done.

How Do They Do It?

Responsive managers apply a number of specific skills and abilities to the task (as
outlined generally in The Responsiveness Paradigm article). Above all, they appear to
be "withit". Withitness

has a number of components. First withit managers are able to put aside their
concerns to listen to (and appear to listen to) those around them. As a result, they
know what is going on, and know what is both said, and said between the lines. They
have the knack of appearing to know what people need even if those needs are not
expressed directly.
However, knowing what is going on, and identifying the needs of those around them
is not sufficient. The responsive manager also acts upon that knowledge, attempting
to help fulfil the needs of employees, superiors, etc. Responsive managers wield
influence to solve problems for those around them, often before even being asked.

Here's an example:

I was responsible for automating an office system in a government department. As

happens sometimes, the Management Information Systems people were not keen on
our going our own way on the project, despite the fact that they had indicated they
could not do it for us in the near future. As a result their cooperation (needed for the
project) was patchy. As team leader, I faced a number of roadblocks, despite the
fact that our Assistant Deputy Minister wanted to see this project come to fruition. I
regularly reported back to our Director, outlining progress and roadblocks. Every
time I communicated roadblocks to the Director, they were removed within a short
time, despite the fact that I did not request direct action. In addition, the Director
advised and counselled me on how to deal with the "systems people" so I could have
maximum impact. Despite the roadblocks, the project was completed on time and
was very successful, much to the chagrin of some of the systems people, who I think
were hoping we would fail.

This is a simple story, but one full of meaning. In this situation the Director was able
to identify the project leader's needs with respect to the project, listening carefully,
and identifying actions she could take to "smooth the path". Not only was the
Director able to remove obstacles and fulfil the need of the project leader, but the
Director responded on a deeper level, helping to teach the Project Leader methods of
becoming more effective, fulfilling yet another need. All of this was assumed to be
the proper role of the Director, and was done without expressing all of the needs
specifically or explicitly.

We can contrast this with the unresponsiveness of the MIS people. They lectured,
they fussed, they predicted dire consequences, rather than offering consistent,
responsive help. They focused not on responding to the needs of their clients, but on
some other factors having to do with control, and their own needs. Eventually, their
lack of responsiveness resulted in the very thing they did not want; loss of control of
the project. As a result of this project their overall status in the organization
suffered, simply because at both an organization and individual level they were seen
as barriers, rather than useful.

Let's look at one more example.

An employee had been working for a government branch for about a year, having
moved to the city as a new resident. In a casual conversation, the supervisor noted
that the employee wasn't looking at his best, and asked how he was feeling. The
employee explained that he hadn't been feeling well lately, and sounded very tired
and overwhelmed. The supervisor determined that the staff member didn't have a
local family doctor, asked if he would like the supervisor to arrange an appointment,
and proceeded to do so immediately. The problem turned out to be a minor one.

In this example we see again the ideas of "withitness" and responsiveness. The
supervisor was able to identify that the staff member was in need of some help,
despite the fact that the staff member did not state this explicitly. Note that the
supervisor didn't pressure the staff member to go to the doctor, but identified needs,
checked them out, and then acted upon them. In this case, help consisted of direct,
helpful action.

Conclusion

These two examples are the stuff of loyalty and commitment. They are remembered
years and years after the fact, and continue to extend the influence of managers. In
this sense responsiveness is a critical component of management success, because it
allows managers and supervisors to get things done, for the benefit of all players.

In the limited space we have, we have attempted to give you a feel of what
responsiveness means. You might want to extend your own understanding by
considering some of the following questions.

1. If you are a manager or supervisor, how can you modify your own behaviours so
that you become and are perceived as more responsive by a) your staff, b) your boss
and c) your customers?

2. Again, if you are a manager or supervisor what is your definition of the

"responsive employee"? Can you identify your "favourite employees", and consider
how they are responsive to you? Our bet is you will find that your most valued
employees are responsive.

3. If you are non-management, what would you need to do to be perceived as more

responsive by the people around you?