13. Changing How You Communicate During Change

Drawing from the Satir Change Model, this chapter provides guidelines for communicating during change. As general communication caveats, these guidelines apply to all interactions in the workplace, even ones occurring during those rare times of stability. But they are particularly applicable if you are responsible for introducing, influencing, or managing change. The following actions will help you become a skilled Change Artist.

1. Respect the matter of timing.

2. Expect individual differences in response to change.

3. Allow time for adjustment.

4. Treat the Old Status Quo with respect.

5. Allow people to vent.

6. Listen proactively.

7. Provide information and more information.

8. Say something, even when you have nothing to say.

9. Empathize, empathize, empathize.

10. Choose your words carefully.

11. Dare to show people you care.

12. Involve people in implementing the change.

13. Educate people about the experience of change.

14. Deal with it!

Offering advance notice is a simple strategy that can have a strikingly positive impact. That was the discovery of a manager in one of my classes who complained that his wife usually reacted angrily whenever he told her that he needed to be away on business the following week. “Why can’t she be more supportive of the travel demands of my job?” he asked.

After hearing my presentation describing the components of the Satir Change Model, he told me he now interpreted his wife’s reaction differently: His travel announcements were Foreign Elements to his wife, creating Chaos for her because she had so little time to make arrangements to handle family matters during his absence. He decided to try a simple modification: He started informing her an extra week in advance of his out-of-town trips.

“Amazing!” he reported when we talked some months later. “She’s suddenly become supportive.” Yet, nothing but his timing had changed. In adjusting that timing, he displayed respect for her need to know and enabled her to plan accordingly.

At times, it may be prudent to delay the introduction of a Foreign Element, especially when those it will affect are already in considerable Chaos from a previous Foreign Element. The cumulative effect may intensify and prolong their Chaos. You don’t always have control over the timing, nor can you ever know all the overlapping states of Chaos others are in. But by being sensitive to the timing, you may be able to minimize the Chaos that they (and you) experience.

At the other end of the continuum are those who thrive on change and get bored if five seconds pass without something new or different happening. These people detest sameness. They enjoy change for the sake of change. If it ain’t broke, they yearn to break it, and then break it again, and again, because there are so many fascinating ways to fix it. These people start from Point A to go to Point B, but become distracted by the charms of Point C, . . . and oh, look, Point Q . . . and what about Point H? Indeed, they’ll enjoy the entire alphabet whether or not they ever reach Point B.

Hardly anyone is superglued to one end of the continuum or the other. Most people reside somewhere in between, the specific location depending on numerous factors. For example, receptivity to change is associated with personality type. People with a preference for perceiving, as described in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (see Chapter 6), tend to be more open to change than people with a preference for judging. What may seem to those with a preference for judging like an abrupt or unanticipated change might, for the perceiving type, be another interesting possibility or even just a ho-hum adjustment.

Furthermore, people with a preference for intuition tend to be more comfortable with change than people with a preference for sensing. Sensing types take in information from that which is concrete, real, present, and immediate, and they therefore tend to be more trusting of the present. Intuitive types, in contrast, are less bound by current reality and tend to function well in a world of imagination, speculation, and hypothesis.

In addition to personality type, one’s response to a given change may vary, depending on factors such as past experience, upbringing, life experiences, the availability of pertinent information, the context, the nature of the change, the effect change has on the person and on others, and the person’s belief in how well he or she can cope with it.

For example, I consulted with the members of a technical-support group that was frantically trying to keep up with its customers’ relentless demands. When I met with the group, one fellow’s relaxed and easygoing manner was in stark contrast to the others. Afterward, I asked him privately how he could be so calm in the midst of such Chaos. He said, “This is nothing—it was much worse where I was before.” He then described the extraordinary customer demands in his previous company. Clearly, past experience influenced his reaction to his current situation. “These people don’t know how easy they have it,” he told me.

In any group, even a seemingly inconsequential change can trigger a range of responses. To reinforce this point, I sometimes introduce a Foreign Element into groups I’m speaking to about change. One way I do this is by asking everyone to move to a different seat, to see things from a different perspective. After a few moments of musical chairs, people get settled, and I continue with the presentation. A while later, I ask what their reaction was to this minor reorganization. Following are some typical responses:

• I didn’t want to move—I liked where I was.

• It seemed like a fun thing to do.

• My seat had a bad leg—I was glad to move.

• I had the perfect seat and I wanted to stay there.

• I was annoyed—I specifically sat where I was before, so I could see.

• What was the point?

• It seemed silly.

• I was curious where this was going.

• I didn’t understand why you wanted us to move, but it was no big deal.

• I resented having to change where I was.

• I got here early to get the best seat and you made me move.

• I ask people to move around in my own classes, so I didn’t mind.

• I was thinking of refusing to move, but finally I went along.

This range of reactions—from resentment and mild anger to eagerness and curiosity—is typical, even in an artificial, short-lived, nonthreatening change such as this one. The presence of so many different reactions is an eye-opener for many attendees and a shaker-upper for those who assume everyone else must have had the same reaction they did.

As is often the case in adjusting to change, the woman who said she had the perfect seat and wanted to stay there later admitted that her new seat wasn’t so bad—in fact, it was just fine. Her reaction provided a delightful illustration of the transition from Chaos to New Status Quo.

Another participant, in describing his reaction, said, “I arrived late. When I saw that everyone was just sitting down, I was relieved to discover I hadn’t missed anything.” He didn’t realize until later that people weren’t seating themselves, but reseating themselves. His comment illustrates that people entering into a changing environment at different points may have very different views of what is transpiring; as a result, they may misinterpret the reactions of others.

I’ve never actually heard anyone make this statement, but the attitude sometimes conveyed by those who impose change on others suggests that these words aren’t far from the tip of their tongue. The implied expectation—that people will instantaneously embrace the Foreign Element—shows how persistently optimistic we humans are. But the sooner we accept that people need time to react to a Foreign Element, to experience Chaos, and to journey to a New Status Quo, the sooner we can focus on steps that will help speed that process. In other words, accepting the fact that implementing change takes time will save time in implementing change.

If you want to know how long the process takes, consider Hofstadter’s Law, created by Doug Hofstadter, an eminent physicist and computer scientist:

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.¹

¹ Cited in Donald A. Norman, Turn Signals Are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1992), p. 144.

Thus, experienced Change Artists anticipate and allow for negative reactions to a Foreign Element. Those who are inexperienced in managing change are less likely to be patient. For example, a consultant named Jay had for a long time silently tolerated being treated in a condescending and overbearing manner by Vic, a colleague Jay depended on for referrals. When Jay finally decided to break the cycle, he announced to Vic that, henceforth, their relationship would change and that he would expect to be treated with respect.

Daring to disrupt their dance took courage on Jay’s part. He felt empowered by his move, and expected Vic to immediately begin to treat him respectfully. However, when he was encouraged to think about what he’d done within the context of the Satir Change Model, he realized that his declaration might have been a Foreign Element for Vic and that Vic might respond by clinging to his previous pattern. After all, this abusive behavior was Vic’s Old Status Quo. Therefore, Jay concluded that he’d need to stand his ground and reinforce his expectation of their new relationship while Vic absorbed the Foreign Element and dealt with his Chaos.

Even a positive Foreign Element upsets the Old Status Quo and triggers a temporary dip in performance. This performance dip is familiar to those who achieve a level of mastery in a sport or hobby and then undergo a period of awkwardness as they strive for the next level. Some people can’t tolerate the discomfort of this temporary ineptitude and revert to the comfort of Old Status Quo. Learning new skills is much more satisfying for those who can cope with—or enjoy—this very normal part of the learning process.

To help people move through Chaos as expeditiously as possible, consider stating explicitly that you know they need time to adjust to the Foreign Element. Emphasize that adapting to something that’s new and unexpected isn’t always easy. Show respect for the reality of Chaos.

For an example of what not to do, consider the mistake made by a particular service provider engaged in establishing a service level agreement with its customers. After extensive negotiation resulted in an agreement that represented a compromise between the customers’ fondest dreams and the provider’s worst nightmare, the SLA manager simply said to the service staff, “It’s done, so live with it.” Big mistake!

For the many service staffers who were inexperienced with SLAs, the agreement itself was a Foreign Element. SLA-driven changes to service strategies were also Foreign Elements to them. So were the changes they had to make in the way they functioned. Everyone who would have responsibility for the success of the agreement needed time to grasp what was in it and to understand how it would affect his or her work load, responsibilities, and ability to succeed.

The organizations that are most effective at easing people through SLA-triggered Chaos do two key things before making the agreement operational. First, they communicate the terms of the agreement to affected personnel, explaining how these terms came to be, and allowing employees a chance to voice their concerns and questions. Second, before making the agreement operational, they seek feedback from those who will have a role in the success of the agreement.

This process of two-way communication—presenting information to affected personnel and soliciting information from them—gives people time to adjust to Foreign Elements. It’s an especially valuable process when the Foreign Element is a new technology, methodology, tool, or process.

To initiate the change process, management summoned successive groups of IT employees to a series of presentations that introduced the wonders of the new technology. Sprinkled throughout the presentations was the message that life would be ever so much better than with the current technology. They’d be able to do what was now difficult or impossible; the problems they experienced with their current platform would vanish. Say goodbye to the old way, everyone: Good times were ahead.

Many of the IT professionals responded to the presentation with derision and sarcasm. This response was particularly fascinating given that these people often put their customers in the position of accepting whatever changes they imposed. Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last, IT people were shown to be no more eager for change than anyone else—at least, when it affects them.

Although a new way of carrying out work—a New Status Quo—may bring substantial improvements, many people’s attention is riveted not on what they’ll gain, but on what they’re being asked to give up. (“What?” they ask. “You want me to give up the clumsy, tedious, awkward, slow, inefficient way of doing things that I profusely and relentlessly complain about? Nothing doing! I like this way!”)

Even when the current way is full of potholes, people know what to expect of it. It’s part of how they operate and think and behave. It’s part of how they see themselves. It’s part of who they are.

People who introduce change often believe that the more benefits they attribute to it, the more readily others will accept it. Although this may be true at times, it’s still unwise to discount or discredit what people hold dear.

To accommodate this reality, it’s far better to express respect for the Old Status Quo and for the role it has played in people’s lives. Instead of describing how different the new way is, describe how it’s similar to the current way. Helping people understand these similarities will ease their acceptance of the differences. This is a particularly useful strategy when they are averse to the change.

As William Bridges points out, “People have to understand that the point of change is to preserve that which does not change.”² Experienced Change Artists keep in mind that although much will change, a great deal will stay the same. As Jerry Weinberg notes in Quality Software Management, Vol. 4: Anticipating Change, “When you concentrate on the process of change, it’s easy to forget that most of the time, you don’t want to change most things in your organization.”³

² William Bridges, Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change (Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1991), p. 76.

³ Gerald M. Weinberg, Quality Software Management, Vol. 4: Anticipating Change (New York: Dorset House Publishing, 1997), p. 70.

In addition to holding one-on-one sessions, you might also facilitate a group venting session. This can be risky; there’s a fine line between healthy venting and out-of-control griping. However, a major plus of group grousing is that it reminds people they’re not alone in their Chaos. Also, if the venting session is carefully managed, the negative energy can be transformed into a search for ways to change the experience into a positive one. Presenting the Satir Change Model, for example, or some other such model of your choice, can help people put their experience in perspective and recognize choices that they may have overlooked.

A potential pitfall of group venting is that the context may not feel safe for everyone. If that’s the case, some people will withhold their views for fear of being judged, belittled, or rejected by the others. For that reason, it’s wise to precede a group session with one-on-ones, to learn privately about each person’s concerns. In Winning the Change Game, authors Kathy Farrell and Craig Broude strongly support this approach.⁴ They favor starting a change effort by meeting with key clients individually, before bringing them together as a group. Their reasoning is that you’re more likely to hear clients’ genuine concerns this way than in a public forum where some may clam up to avoid a backlash from the others.

⁴ Kathy Farrell and Craig Broude, Winning the Change Game: How to Implement Information Systems with Fewer Headaches and Bigger Paybacks (Los Angeles: Breakthroughs Enterprises, 1987), pp. 27–28.

In addition to one-on-one meetings, an anonymous poll provides a safe way for individuals to express their views about a planned or potential change. I used this approach when I asked the people in a particular group to imagine how they’d react if told that their recently created teams would be disbanded and new ones formed. I asked them to privately and anonymously write their reaction on an index card. Then I collected the cards and displayed them along a continuum of receptivity to the idea.

One-quarter of the group was enthusiastic about the idea of creating new teams. About half of the members of the group were somewhat opposed, and the remaining quarter was vehemently opposed. Clearly, the idea of a change in team makeup was appealing to some and loathsome to others. The feedback that I gathered helped people see how their reactions compared with those of the rest of the group, and it gave me insight into their feelings about team reorganization.

Allowing participants to describe their reactions anonymously may be critical to their sense of safety; requiring them to reveal their identities could distort the results. People who introduce a new idea sometimes make the mistake of posing it to an assembled group and asking people for reactions. In that setting, many may withhold their views or appear to go along, rather than risk being seen as resistant or unsupportive. As noted in Chapter 10, if you want useful feedback from people, you have to make it comfortable for them to provide it.

This was the case with a group of internal consultants in transition to a more proactive, business-focused consulting model. Bill, the director of the group, was new to the organization and eager to implement the model. Unfortunately, he failed to appreciate the Chaos his group was experiencing—a state that was largely due to his own vague and ambiguous management style.

In fact, the difference between Bill’s view of his efforts and the consultants’ view was striking. Bill saw himself as forthcoming, decisive, goal-oriented, and open to the consultants’ ideas. The consultants, however, felt that his strengths as a director were far outweighed by his weaknesses in leading this organizational change. They saw him as confused and confusing, unable to make decisions, uninterested in their views, unsure of how to implement the new model, and out of sync with the culture of the organization.

One of the group members’ dominant complaints was that although Bill repeatedly claimed to be interested in their thoughts, he never explicitly asked for their input. A few days after my visit, I received a lengthy e-mail from a woman in the group, describing her analysis of the new consulting model. I found her ideas thorough and sophisticated, but I was especially struck by one of her comments: “I have been here for a year, but I have never presented Bill with these opinions simply because he has never asked me.”

Like many people who oversee change, Bill never knew the views of those in his group, even highly capable members such as the woman who wrote to me, because he never explicitly asked. Perhaps these people should have been more forthcoming with their ideas, but that’s exactly the point: Many people aren’t. It’s often a mistake to conclude that people who don’t present their ideas have none to offer. Go to them and ask.

Make listening part of your change-management strategy. Set aside time to listen to whatever may be of concern to those affected by the change. Hold one-on-one sessions or gatherings of small groups to talk about issues of concern. Saying that you’re interested in people’s views is just communication blather; if you mean it, prove it.

Some people enjoy the temporary incompetence that’s part of learning a new skill. For many, however, the loss of control—when that familiar Old Status Quo is yanked away—is unsettling. During times of change, many people have an intense fear of being humiliated or being seen as incompetent. As noted by author Jerry Weinberg, the fear of looking foolish is worse than the fear of failure.⁵

⁵ Gerald M. Weinberg, “Tools, Fools, Rules, and Schools—What Hinders Improvement in Development Methods?” Software Quality Engineering Software Management Conference, San Diego, Feb. 13, 2001.

The rumor mill starts churning as soon as a change is announced. When information about the change isn’t forthcoming, the people affected by it are quick to assume the worst. By providing information early and often, you’ll go a long way toward minimizing the spread of rumors and their messy effects. Furthermore, when given some information rather than being kept in the dark, people are more likely to tolerate a certain amount of turmoil. Often, demonstrating that you are willing to communicate is as important as the precise information communicated, because it tells those involved that they are an integral part of the process. Most important, it lets them know they haven’t been forgotten.

Of course, honesty is critical during times of change, especially when the news is bad. People quickly see through an attempt to conceal bad news. Whether that news is hidden or shared, people take action to protect themselves. As one CIO explained as his company took a financial nosedive, the minute employees sense that management is trying to put one over on them, they walk.

Another executive held weekly meetings with entire divisions to answer questions and eliminate rumors. Divisional meetings may be overwhelming for some people, but a mix of gatherings of different sizes, along with other forums in which people can ask questions, can help people put their fears behind them. In addition to providing information proactively, ensure that people have a point of contact for reliably getting a response to questions—whether by phone, in person, or by e-mail.

Making information readily available can help reduce people’s resistance to change and their very human fears about it. Therefore, it’s a good idea to increase the dissemination of information not just about the change itself, but also about its impact on processes, responsibilities, expectations, and opportunities. For example, video presentations, Q&A sessions, demos, periodic e-mail updates, and information posted on intranets can be helpful in reaching different groups of employees. And of course, face-to-face communication is also critical in getting the word out during these stressful times. This personal contact presents an opportunity to help people gain the Transforming Ideas that will help them emerge from Chaos.

Authors Farrell and Broude offer a Why-How-What approach to providing information.⁶ At the outset, when people are still attached to the current way of doing their work, provide Why information: Why should they change? But don’t present this information in boring logicalese. Instead, personalize it by explaining why the new way will help people avoid current aggravations and accomplish tasks they couldn’t until now. Identify people’s hot buttons. Find strong reasons for them to want to change—not just practical reasons, but emotional ones, too.

⁶ Farrell and Broude, op. cit., pp. 50ff.

Next, provide the How information to help people understand how to actually go about making the transition to the new way. This information is very specific, focusing on steps, procedures, schedules, plans, forms, and so on. Its purpose is to respond to people’s concerns as they begin to wonder: How in the world will we get there from here, anyway?

Finally, provide the What information. Farrell and Broude advocate drawing people in by giving them a sense of what the new way will look and feel like, and how they’ll feel using it. This information focuses on benefits and tries to make the new way as real and tangible as possible. As Farrell and Broude suggest, it’s a good idea to offer different Why-How-What information to the different functional areas and levels of personnel that are affected by the change; after all, they have different needs and perspectives.

Sometimes, however, the information is not being withheld; it just isn’t available yet. In that situation—when you don’t have the answers people want—say so. As was discussed in Chapter 9, people become upset when they are not kept informed or are made to endure unexplained, excessive waiting. And that’s in normal times. During times of change, such reactions are significantly intensified. At such times, no news is definitely not good news.

If you assure employees that you know they’re eager for information but explain that you simply don’t have the information they want, you give them something to know rather than something to obsess about. Knowing that you aren’t deliberately withholding information may not relieve their stress, but at least they won’t accuse you of ulterior motives. And if you do have information but for various reasons are unable to disclose it, be open about that, as well. Explain that circumstances prevent you from telling them what they’d like to know, but that you will tell them as soon as you can. Whether you don’t yet know something or can’t yet disclose what you do know, periodically remind them of this fact so they won’t begin to suspect otherwise.

Trust, of course, plays an important role in your employees’ acceptance of your explanation. If trust is lacking, they will see your response as part of a pattern of obfuscation. On the other hand, if you have a reputation for playing it straight, they will accept that you are not needlessly withholding information. I once worked for a director who kept me informed about far more than I expected him to tell me. However, when I inquired about a particularly sensitive issue, he started to hem and haw, which was not characteristic of his up-front manner. I told him that I’d be satisfied if he simply told me he couldn’t tell me. So, he told me . . . that he couldn’t tell me. And that was sufficient.

Think about the last time you moved, whether to another state, another home, another job—or even to another cubicle. Think of all the taking down and putting up, all the packing and unpacking, all the things that turned out better than you had imagined and all the things that turned out worse. For many people, stress is the dominant theme of such an experience.

So it’s not surprising that although some people look forward to a change in location, to gain better digs or a shorter commute, they may still find the move itself unpleasant at best. The facilities group not only had to manage people’s attachment to their current space—people form strong emotional attachments to their home and work spaces—but relocations without incident were rare because of the complexity of accommodating employees’ work-space needs.

I presented the Satir Change Model to this group as a basis for discussing what people might do to minimize their clients’ stress—and, not incidentally, their own. One of their decisions was to exhibit more empathy for their clients’ situation. They felt they could do this by connecting more frequently and more effectively with their clients.

In particular, they agreed to make initial contact with people further in advance of a planned move and to follow up periodically as the moving date approached. They also decided to send out reminders about pertinent particulars that people often forget in the hubbub, and to give their clients an opportunity to express concerns about the move. They realized that some people simply needed to vent about an upcoming move and that empathetic listening was one of the most important services they could provide.

Furthermore, the group members resolved not to react defensively when people complained about being relocated; instead, they agreed to acknowledge people’s anxieties and to seek additional input to ensure they hadn’t missed important details.

Expressing empathy during times of change is not about uttering sympathetic oohs and aahs. It’s about communicating proactively and with sincere concern. One considerate way to exhibit empathy, particularly with subordinates and customers, is to assure them that you don’t expect perfection as they start to emerge from Chaos. Remember, Practice and Integration is a time of trial and error, a time of trying and slipping and trying again, a time of inching toward the New Status Quo, occasionally interrupted by return trips through Chaos.

When people are learning a new way of working and start to feel like they’ve “got it,” they may find it depressing to suddenly slide back. Yet that’s the nature of Practice and Integration. Practice is needed before integration of the new way is complete.⁷ Allowing for mistakes during Practice and Integration is a valuable form of empathy. Even small signs of empathy are helpful, because they say, “We’re listening and we care.”

⁷ Some Satir practitioners view this stage as Integration and Practice rather than Practice and Integration. They see it as a process of first integrating the many aspects of the change and then practicing them. My own perspective, and that of other Satir practitioners, is that it is through the process of practice that integration occurs. The truth is probably somewhere between the two views: Practice and Integration are inextricably bound, and together, they help achieve the New Status Quo.

For example, the members of a business unit felt that their needs as customers were being ignored, and they wanted to create a service level agreement with their technology provider. Their desire for improved responsiveness was valid; their provider’s service had been subpar. However, their attitude of “We want it—so do it!” was poised to backfire, more likely to elicit resistance than acceptance and agreement.

As we discussed how they might best present their needs, they agreed to undemandingly explain the level of responsiveness they needed and to ask how their needs might fit what the provider could deliver. They would say, in effect: “Here’s what I need and why. How is that for you?” This approach would create a basis for discussion and negotiation that would prevent the provider from summarily rejecting their requests without consideration.

Their strategy worked. Afterward, the customer manager delighted in reporting how forthcoming the provider proved to be. Provider personnel weren’t so hardheaded after all; like most of us, they preferred to be asked rather than bullied. When they discovered that this customer wasn’t demanding the impossible and was willing to negotiate, they became even more willing to provide what the customer needed.

In addition to being cautious about the words you use to introduce a change, be sensitive to the words you use to describe a person’s response to change. That description will influence how you interact with the person. Once you label people as resistant to change, you will probably continue to consider them resistant. Doing so fails to acknowledge them as people—individuals who are uncomfortable with a given change and who may have valid concerns that have not yet had a fair hearing. At a fundamental level, labels disregard the reality that people vary in the way they respond to change.

In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell emphasizes our tendency to think in terms of absolutes: “that a person is a certain way or is not a certain way.”⁸ He describes the psychological tendency known as the Fundamental Attribution Error: “when it comes to interpreting other people’s behavior, human beings invariably make the mistake of overestimating the importance of fundamental character traits and underestimating the importance of the situation and context.”⁹

⁸ Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2000), p. 158.

⁹ Ibid., p. 160.

As noted by Dale Emery, an expert on transforming resistance during change, “Resistance is a word that stops conversation.”¹⁰ He suggests that when you are tempted to describe people as resistant, you should consider some alternative interpretations:

¹⁰ Dale Emery, “A Force for Change—Using Resistance Positively,” Software Quality Engineering Software Management Conference, San Diego, Feb. 14, 2001. Dale is an expert on the subject of resistance. For readings on resistance, see www.dhemery.com.

• I don’t understand their point of view . . . yet.

• They did something I didn’t expect.

• They did something I didn’t want them to do.

• What they did doesn’t fit into my model of how change happens.

• Either I know something they don’t, or they know something I don’t.

• Maybe I’ve made a mistake.

• I’ve created a problem for them.

• I’m asking them to do something that feels unsafe.

These are generous interpretations of your own reaction to someone else’s apparent resistance. Rather than sitting in judgment, seek additional information that would help you understand the person’s reactions.

In On Death and Dying, Kübler-Ross describes a seriously ill hospital patient who was never asked straightforward questions about how he was doing. The hospital nurses and staff never offered him a chance to talk about his condition, instead mistaking his grim look as a sign that they should keep their distance. However, this perception was drastically incorrect: “. . . in fact, their own anxiety prevented them from finding out what he wanted to share so badly with another human being.”¹¹ And indeed, when it comes to organizational change, few measures are as effective at demonstrating that you care as asking employees how they are doing and giving them a chance to talk about what they are experiencing. Sometimes, simply asking, “How are you doing?” is all it takes.

¹¹ Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, On Death and Dying (New York: Collier Books, 1969), p. 31.

In fact, not talking with people about changes that are taking place is tantamount to donning a cheerful mask, so as to conceal from them what is destined to become evident eventually. But the mask doesn’t work because employees don’t work in a vacuum. They see what’s going on around them. As Kübler-Ross notes, the more people who know the truth of the situation, the sooner the patient (or in the organizational context, the employee) “will realize the true state of affairs anyway, since few people are actors enough to maintain a believable mask of cheerfulness over a long period of time.”¹²

¹² Ibid., p. 32.

If it’s feasible, present a specific problem regarding the change and invite people to comment. The problem might revolve around identifying aspects of the change effort that might inadvertently be overlooked. For example, you can challenge people to analyze the change effort from their own perspective and to come up with three ways it may fall short if certain considerations are overlooked. Or ask the type of question that’s at the heart of Dietrich Dörner’s The Logic of Failure: How can we prevent the solution from creating a new problem?¹³ Challenges such as this can help you to harness the energy of people who oppose the change.

¹³ Dietrich Dörner, The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1996).

Another way to involve people is to give them some control over the situation. For example, when a Foreign Element takes the form of a major outage, most people are eager to know when it will be resolved. Providing periodic updates during the interim can help to assure them that the situation is being rectified and that they haven’t been forgotten. One way to offer a modicum of control is to ask how often they’d like you to provide these updates—assuming you’ll be in a position to act on their wishes. Your inquiry, itself, gives them some say in the matter when, otherwise, they’d have none at all.

Acknowledge that people are likely to have different reactions to change, and show respect, in both word and deed, for those reactions. Help employees understand the normal stages that people go through when confronted with unexpected or unwanted change—or even expected and wanted change. Teach them the terminology and concepts of change, including terms such as Foreign Element, Chaos, and Transforming Ideas (from the Satir Change Model); Transition and Neutral Zones (from Bridges’ model); or pertinent terms from other models. This terminology provides a vocabulary for communicating about a shared experience and for helping each other drive toward the New Status Quo. It also helps people describe the state they’re in at any given time.

I find the terminology of the Satir Change Model extremely valuable in communicating with colleagues and friends who are familiar with this model. When confronted with a situation that unsettles or disorients me, I can simply say, “Wow, that’s a Foreign Element!” and they can relate to what I’m experiencing—regardless of whether they’ve been in the same situation. If any of us mentions that we’re in Chaos, the others may not understand the specific nature of the person’s Chaos, but we can appreciate that the person is feeling jostled and try to be sensitive and supportive.

How do you deal with the human factors? Build trust. Prepare people. Talk to them. Listen to them. Empathize with their reactions. Involve them in the effort. Explain the experience of change. Reassure them. Tell them what you can—and when you have information that you can’t divulge, say so. Explain the reasoning behind your thinking. Don’t expect immediate acceptance of your ideas. Treat people’s concerns with empathy and respect. Be persistent without being pushy. Communicate early, often, and in multiple ways. In other words, follow the guidelines in this chapter, and throughout this book. Above all, use your common sense. It will help you through the rough spots.