Advocates of ‘continuous improvement‘ often present the associated change process as one involving a linear series of positive steps between current and desired future states. This characterisation of the change process is unfortunately not the way many experience it, especially during the period immediately after a change is introduced.

One prominent example of the ‘positive steps‘ framework is Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model. These steps are: creating a sense of urgency; building a guiding coalition; developing a strategic vision; communicating it; empowering employees to act; generating short-term wins; sustaining acceleration; and finally, anchoring the changes in the corporate culture. While these steps are helpful to those charged with planning and implementing a change, they tend to gloss over the concerns of those who may be impacted by the change. Similarly, the Dreyfus Model which describes the steps from novice to expert (novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, expert) starts from a baseline of current knowledge and skill and only progresses up the expertise staircase. The Lewin Change Model employs only three major steps: Unfreeze (the status quo), Change, and Refreeze (the new status quo).

These three models, while differing in scope, share the assumption of a linear upward trajectory. They therefore risk reinforcing a blind spot in director thinking. All models and frameworks inevitably simplify the elements involved, some more than others. Simple linear change models only scratch the surface of what any change requires. The difference between director and team member change perspectives is illustrated in the header image above.

Balancing Stability and Innovation

Boards spend a good deal of their time and energy ensuring that their organisation is compliant with laws, regulations, rules, policies and procedures. While they address innovation and improvement initiatives periodically, keeping a balance between stability (continuity) and change (transformation) is a challenge.

For team members who spend so much of their time being accountable for consistently administering the organisation in compliance with policies, budgets, plans and schedules, being asked to adopt a major change can seem like a threat to their capacity to deliver the outcomes they understood they were appointed to achieve. Directors often frame change as strategic opportunity, while staff may experience it as disruption to their role identity.

Resistance to change is not necessarily unfounded. As suggested in the next chart, team members may be legitimately concerned about the loss of continuity, coherence, clarity, competence, control and confidence. Sometimes when external consultants or new executives recommend streamlining, they inadvertently damage complex workflows and interdependencies, and so commit unwitting sabotage.

Your board may be comfortable to sign off on a Theory of Change, but that framework is not sufficient by itself to implement the proposed change. The following chart highlights six legitimate concerns your team members may have, that could lead to change resistance. Suggested resources to address these concerns are also offered.

Change Curves

The stepwise approach is contrasted with curved change pathways. Two similar examples of these change visualisations are the J-curve and U-curve. These models both involve trajectories that reflect an initial dip in productivity and confidence, sometimes called the “valley of despair“, before benefits begin to flow in later stages of the implementation.

Stepwise change processes that fail to recognise the dip or trough that change can trigger, lead to poor risk assessment when weighing the consequences of a proposal. Investing in training and support, and allowing time for team members to acquire new knowledge and skills, are key success factors. Beyond those practical measures, sensitivity will be required to the other issues team members may experience, such as loss of confidence and clarity. Transparent communications and responsiveness to concerns are essential.

The X-axis refers to the time required for change implementation, with most models dividing that time into stages, with associated milestones or targets. The Y-axis is used for a wide variety of states that can either appear as isolated curves, or together with other state perspectives where the relationship between dimensions is of interest. For example, charting productivity and emotional response levels against training and support provided at each stage of the initiative.

Here are four U-curve charts illustrating the similarity in change trajectory descriptions across quite different themes.

Change Perspectives

Depending on the degree of pessimism or optimism expressed by the person implementing the change, their change curve will skew as illustrated in the next chart.

Martin Seligman‘s 3P framework suggests that the dimensions of Permanence, Pervasiveness and Personalisation are the key ones defining whether a person is expressing a pessimistic or optimistic disposition. The table below outlines the kinds of scripts employed by exemplars of each perspective.

A notable insight in this comparison is that ‘continuous improvement’ would be better reframed as ‘continuity AND improvement‘, so that the suggestion of perpetual turmoil and the threat of lost competence, control, and confidence is moderated, if not removed. This framing may also help your board to balance stability and innovation (conformance and performance).

Change Lenses

Beyond the simple analysis offered by the split between pessimism and optimism there are more nuanced ways of thinking about stakeholders’ change perspectives. The consciousness level they express at the time of the change may vary from person to person, but also within the one person from day to day.

The seven levels of consciousness described by Richard Barrett are illustrated below in the form of camera lens filters, which colour the perceiver’s response (or reaction) to the change. Where a person demonstrates a lower level response, the challenge for the ‘change manager’ is to lift their thinking to a higher level – probably one level at a time.

The problem versus solution mindset dichotomy has been highlighted by several thought leaders. This is essentially a modified version of the pessimist versus optimist dispositions which have been recognised down through the centuries.

Another way of thinking about stakeholder perspectives is to use an intersectionality framework. For instance, a younger staff member on a short-term contract may perceive risk differently from a senior, permanent staff member.

An 8D version of this framework that I developed with Dr Teresa De Fazio OAM of Intersect Global Partners, is highlighted below. This reveals that each stakeholder brings a unique mix of influences to bear on their relationship with the change proposed. Each of these dimensions can be further broken down into numerous subsets of factors and influences affecting a person’s change disposition. You may not wish to do profiles for each and every stakeholder, but where you are encountering resistance, this framework may offer a more nuanced way of seeking to understand and take account of that person’s perspective.

Change Journeys

The Change Journey metaphor has been expressed in various ways over time. Pathways, roadmaps, the hero’s journey, customer journeys, and labyrinths are just some examples. Sometimes we use visual metaphors such as the U-curve, which describes the ‘valley of change‘.

The next chart focuses on three of the major stages of the change journey: beginning, as a new change is introduced; middle, traversing the valley of change; and end, normalisation of the change (and hopefully improved efficiency and/or effectiveness). While this oversimplifies the diverse range of change experiences that are possible, it does offer some insights into the challenges that can arise, and the measures required to address them.

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross is rightly credited with helping us to think about the stages of grief, but she was not the first to refer to the despondency and depression that people encounter on the path of transformation. Mythology and literature have given us other versions of the valley of change, including ‘Descent into the Underworld’ (Orpheus, Odysseus, Heracles), the ‘Dark Night of the Soul’, the ‘Slough of Despond’ in Pilgrim’s Progress, and the ‘dark forest’ in Dante’s Inferno, among others.

Two of the better known journey quotes are from Joseph Campbell and TS Eliot, as highlighted in the chart below.

Change Personalisation

Dale Hample and Rodney Richards developed a framework called ‘Taking Conflict Personally‘ (TCP), which argues that resistance to change is not just ‘pushback‘ but often a deeply personal reaction. The framework, described in the table below, uses four relational contexts and associated emotional, cognitive, and identity states to ‘diagnose’ and ‘treat’ 12 key aspects of a person’s change response.

The TCP framework might remind you of the Situational Leadership framework devised by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. In that case, the choice between directing, coaching, supporting or delegating is dependent on the developmental level of the team member. In the TCP framework, the choice of ‘treatment’ is dependent on the leader’s perception of the team member’s stress levels, perspective-taking, self-concept, and goal orientation.

Summary

Change is rarely experienced as a smooth upward path from one state to another. Linear models such as those offered by Kotter, Dreyfus, and Lewin provide useful planning tools, but they understate the lived experience of disruption, uncertainty, and identity threat. Curvilinear models remind us of the productivity and confidence dip that often precedes improvement. Mindset, level of consciousness, and intersecting identities all colour stakeholder responses. For leaders, the challenge is to balance continuity and improvement, recognise the valley of change, and take change personally — by attending to the legitimate concerns of those most affected.

See also:
Change resistance and response
Good Change: Bad Change
Doorways, Gateways, Passages, & Portals of Change
Actors, Factors, and Vectors of Change
Regret: your improvement catalyst
Strategic Causality