How Do People Process Change?

Today's article is the second in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

We Don't Process "Change"

"Change" is confusing.

We want to process specific words and images that make sense. Tangibles that we can see, touch, taste, smell, feel...or at least as many of those as possible.

We want Sticky: "By November, 2008, we want to increase our customer base 10%, revenues 20%, and build a new facility for research. That means a more secure future for us and a little more space for everyone who has been working in tight quarters. Let me share where that idea came from and why I think we can do it..."

Hmm. I have an idea how I might contribute to that. And I'll be happy to get rid of my cubicle mate.

We often get: "We're going to build our market share and revenues to increase shareholder value, improve our state-of-the-art research, and facilitate the facilitation of facile facilities".

Oh, you heard that one before? Sorry. But as Dr. Phil would ask, "How's that workin' for ya?

I'm going to offer up a post on the Language of Change later in the series. Today I want to highlight the process, time element, and what they mean for those involved in initiating changes.

Where Change Begins and Why That's Important

I watch leaders, managers, politicians, and spouses (myself included) get into unnecessarily difficulty trying to make things different--and hopefully, better. The reason:

Changes demand personal processing time, from the initial idea to the announcement and then to the doing part. We all sort of know that, but don't always acknowledge the implications once we become excited about the change!

Here is a look into the time line and process of the person who is generating "the big idea":

You are the initiator of the big new idea. You spend days and weeks falling in love with it. Along the way, though, you aren't so sure. You start to resist the practicality of your own creation.

Discouragement and self-doubt set in. So you ask for information and education. You even reach the point where you need to verify it with other trusted business leaders who have tried something similar. Finally, you accept your own idea and internalize it. It's yours. And it will work. You can see the possibilities as clearly as if the reality already existed.

You've completed the process of personal, internal acceptance and are a believer.

Why?

You have enough specific, concrete evidence to overcome self-doubt.

And you've totally forgotten about the emotional roller-coaster ride you took in order to get here.

What Do You Do Next?

You announce, with great enthusiasm, "We are going to change!"

For some reason, your loyal follower(s) don't respond with the same verve.

They question what it all means, how you know it can work, how it's better than what you have now (and how do you know that?). They even tell you why "it" probably "won't work here", and ask "OK, what do you want me to do?'

Those weasels are showing the "resistance" that you read about in one of those books.

Now: Work your way through that graphic above one more time.

Think about the totality of time, study, rumination, discussions, self-doubt,and the emotional highs and lows that had to happen before you--one person--"got on board". And it was your own idea to begin with.

Here are two questions:

1. What do leaders--initiators of change--need to do to genuinely help others arrive at the same place?

2. What has your experience been on either side of the initiative?

Join me for the next installment : How to increase understanding, acceptance, commitment, and participation.

If you enjoyed this article, I think you will want to read:

• Align Yourself Before You Align Everyone Else

• Initiating a Change? Think About This
  

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

My kind of topic (again)! My dear friend and mentor Richard C. has the same attitude of implementing new ideas the right way (and I learn a lot from him). (http://richardcalderwood.typepad.com/bg/2007/07/the-wheelbarrow.html)

Can I also link to a recent post from Ann Michael that touches this subject too? "The Power of Inertia"
(http://managetochange.typepad.com/main/2007/09/the-power-of-in.html)

In the meantime I'll stay tuned in for more of your articles on this subject and will try to drag my friend with me, sure he'll want to contribute for himself. (Coincidently, this morning I started re-reading "The Knowing-Doing Gap", must be something in the air) (http://www.thekissbusiness.co.uk/2007/02/talk_the_talk_w.html)

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

This is a great series on change! I like the way you make it personal - because change is. I am sure you've read the FastCompany article "Change or Die". A great statistic: only one in eight people, after surviving a heart attack, change their habits to avoid another one!! How do we get employees to embrace a new policy, clients a new product, our dog a new walking route, when those threatened with death rarely take action to change?

Personalize it. That's how.

I look forward to the next installments.

Cheers, Joe

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Karin,

No problem with the links--they are all good sources and that's what this is all about.

I do hope there's something in the air, as we're all trying to make improvements in our lives and in our work. So the more we understand about ourselves--as well as how we can bring others along--the better off everyone will be.

Now, as for Ann's link: I already had it bookmarked to use in a future post in this series. This is exactly why those guys got together in 1776 and said, "Enough of those Brits. Even if they started off in the Netherlands."

If those wild and crazy colonists got upset today, we would have had "The Boston Link Party".

Keep it simple...

[Wally Bock]

Sometimes the best way to get people to the same place with you is for you to go to that place together. I quote Woody Morcott, CEO of the Dana Corporation: "Why did we hire 55,000 brains and only use three of them?"

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Joe,

Thanks for weighing in...I know your work has you constantly involved in the relationship between change and performance.

You know, I've got the Fast Company article bookmarked and will have to bring it out of hiding and put it into a post. Appreciate the reminder.

Those heart attack statistic speak volumes. I guess that tells us just how deliberate we need to be in bringing about improvements and changes in organizations. And not to be discouraged when we don't attain critical mass straight away.

Note: For those of you reading this comment, be sure to check out Joe's blog at http://happyburroblog.com/

[Steve Roesler]

Wally,

Thanks for the one-liner. You'll see it again in the related post:-)

[Nick McCormick]

Steve,
I like what Jim Collins has to say on the topic in "Good to Great." Just start doing things to achieve the end (pushing on the flywheel) and then point to the tangible accomplishments and show how they fit into the proposed change/ initiative/ strategy. Success breeds confidence. People will see and feel the momentum and line up. Great companies achieve alignment, but they don't pay attention to it. It just happens. There is no need for fanfare, hoopla, and grand pronouncements. Rather, it's a quiet deliberate process of disciplined people engaged in disciplined thought taking disciplined action.

[Steve Roesler]

Nick, I'm always somewhat amazed--and I don't know why after all this time--that the idea of "doing", then acknowledging, isn't a way of life. I am fortunate to have a CEO client who is making changes in this way right now, and it's a joy. However: people are still asking for and waiting for "The Big Pronouncement". His response: "I don't have one. We're doing "it" every day."

There was a time, not all that long ago, when companies made improvements by simply starting to do new things. The introduction of grand theoretical models of change added an intellectual understanding of what people experience, and need to experience, during changes. That's fine--I like and need mental models. But I watched it morph into the "We can't change until we have a change project" movement. Now there is an expectation that a grandiose process must accompany every improvement that takes place. Processes are supposed to enable results, not have a life of their own.

I'm going to finish the next segment after a few hours sleep. In that one or the following one I'm going to reference your comment. You've sparked a good conversation and I thank you.

[Shane]

Hey Steve,

One of my fave books is The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership ... people have to buy into the leader before they buy into their ideas. That's always rung true in my experiences.

I'd say 90% of selling "the big change" has nothing to do with the change at all but the relationships and confidence you build with your people. And that's in line in Nick's comment and yours. There is no grand idea that performs better than just making it happen every day. Steady and consistent results build confidence.

And when the day comes when there HAS to be a big change, that "confidence capital" is what gets everyone on board.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Shane,

Glad you decided to add the relationship factor. I have certainly read the book and agree with John on the confidence capital principle. It's proven all the time.

"Good ideas" can get short shrift because the person presenting them doesn't have the relational capital needed to build support.

I'm pretty sure your observation and experience with this is scheduled to appear over the next few days:-)

Thanks for adding another key element to the mix...

[peter vajda]

My experience in supporting others to work with change is to allow others to understand that their resistance is perfectly ok, normal and acceptable and that this is the place to "start" the change process. The next step is to support others to inquire into their resistance...to see what's underneath their doubt and fear...the two foundational elements of resistance. Many leaders and managers choose not to take the time to go into this exploratory process of inquiry and/or have no clue as to how to facilitate this process. Many leaders react (certainly not respond) to others' resistance with a "Heck, I get it, why don't you!" or some flavor of "Why can't you just be me like me" mantra with the expectation that it's a done deal.

A large part of this, IMHO, is managers' and leaders' lack of an EQ mindset that keeps them from taking a relational, rather than a task, orientation, to others when it comes to change.

Allowing others to have their resistance and not making them feel "bad or wrong" for having their resistance, for me, is an effective first step in creating a safe and trusting container where resistance can be discussed and dissected, often leading to forward movement towards accepting change.

[cheap levitra]

I'd say 90% of selling "the big change" has nothing to do with the change at all but the relationships and confidence you build with your people. And that's in line in Nick's comment and yours. There is no grand idea that performs better than just making it happen every day. Steady and consistent results build confidence.