Why Is Change So Painful?
Change pushes people's buttons. People may intellectually grasp that workplace changes are inevitable and perhaps even worthwhile, but that doesn't mean that they're happy about them. "When humans confront rapid change, they get frustrated, freeze up, get rigid and rebel against the changes," observes Marianne Hedin, author of an International Data Corporation report called "Change Management: Market Trends, Growth and the Competitive Landscape."
Psychiatrist Pierre Mornell, author of Games Companies Play, also thinks that human beings are allergic to change. Never expect them to muster enthusiasm for it, he warns. Dr. Mornell believes that people have natural urges to wax nostalgic about the past, even if in reality the past wasn't as rosy as they now recall. People cling tightly to something that is slipping away from them and even more tightly to that which is being yanked out of their hands.
Why this aversion to change? One expert gives five basic reasons. First, change may shatter our sense of equilibrium. Second, it may rob us of our sense of control. Third, it threatens our ability to meet others' expectations. Fourth, it can create extra work, causing us to alter schedules, juggle workloads, etc. Fifth, it can evoke uncertainty and cause a sense of anxiety to pervade the workplace.
Many employees perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that any change jeopardizes their jobs and therefore their lifestyles and their ability to meet family obligations. The bottom line: people resist change because they fear it is going to cost them something – financially, psychologically or socially.
Exacerbating people's natural fear is the nature of change. These days, change seldom moves in a continuous, relatively straight line. Rather, change in the modern business world "is discontinuous, abrupt, seditious," says Harvard business professor Gary Hamel, author of Leading the Revolution.
This puts managers in a bind: even as change becomes more frightening, it also becomes more necessary to survival. Holding still is downright dangerous. But change efforts are themselves fraught with risk, especially if employees haven't bought into them. The end result can be a high level of anxiety that costs the firm a lot of money. An article in CMA Management magazine presents the following scenario: assume that during a stressful transition period each employee spends one hour a day worrying instead of working productively. If the company has 500 employees and the average labor cost per employee is $20 an hour, the cost to the organization in lost productivity would be $10,000 per day, which translates into $50,000 per workweek and a whopping $200,000 per month.
Employee communication is key if a company wishes to avoid such pitfalls. During a change process, companies tend to undercommunicate by a factor of ten, claims Harvard Business School professor John P. Kotter, author of Leading Change. This means that most companies need more communication of all kinds. Not only do managers need to communicate more with staff, they need to listen more, too. And they need to communicate more with one another across business functions and operating units.
Take the example of Johnson & Johnson. CEO Ralph S. Larsen worries that the company's relative well-being might serve as an impediment to healthy change. "We felt that we could become victims of our own success by embracing the false assumption that the traditional ways of doing things would continue to power our growth," Larsen says. To avoid this pitfall, Larsen established a proactive change program that assigns teams made up of senior managers from the different global operating divisions to meet together for several days at special sessions. The sole purpose of these gatherings is the discussion of possible changes that might benefit the company. Larsen says that the team-structured change brainstorming process has proven a gold mine of new ideas and brought great enthusiasm for change. "There is a receptiveness to deal with change that did not exist five years ago."
====================================================
For other information, try the Change Management Resource Library at
http://www.change-management.org.
Psychiatrist Pierre Mornell, author of Games Companies Play, also thinks that human beings are allergic to change. Never expect them to muster enthusiasm for it, he warns. Dr. Mornell believes that people have natural urges to wax nostalgic about the past, even if in reality the past wasn't as rosy as they now recall. People cling tightly to something that is slipping away from them and even more tightly to that which is being yanked out of their hands.
Why this aversion to change? One expert gives five basic reasons. First, change may shatter our sense of equilibrium. Second, it may rob us of our sense of control. Third, it threatens our ability to meet others' expectations. Fourth, it can create extra work, causing us to alter schedules, juggle workloads, etc. Fifth, it can evoke uncertainty and cause a sense of anxiety to pervade the workplace.
Many employees perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that any change jeopardizes their jobs and therefore their lifestyles and their ability to meet family obligations. The bottom line: people resist change because they fear it is going to cost them something – financially, psychologically or socially.
Exacerbating people's natural fear is the nature of change. These days, change seldom moves in a continuous, relatively straight line. Rather, change in the modern business world "is discontinuous, abrupt, seditious," says Harvard business professor Gary Hamel, author of Leading the Revolution.
This puts managers in a bind: even as change becomes more frightening, it also becomes more necessary to survival. Holding still is downright dangerous. But change efforts are themselves fraught with risk, especially if employees haven't bought into them. The end result can be a high level of anxiety that costs the firm a lot of money. An article in CMA Management magazine presents the following scenario: assume that during a stressful transition period each employee spends one hour a day worrying instead of working productively. If the company has 500 employees and the average labor cost per employee is $20 an hour, the cost to the organization in lost productivity would be $10,000 per day, which translates into $50,000 per workweek and a whopping $200,000 per month.
Employee communication is key if a company wishes to avoid such pitfalls. During a change process, companies tend to undercommunicate by a factor of ten, claims Harvard Business School professor John P. Kotter, author of Leading Change. This means that most companies need more communication of all kinds. Not only do managers need to communicate more with staff, they need to listen more, too. And they need to communicate more with one another across business functions and operating units.
Take the example of Johnson & Johnson. CEO Ralph S. Larsen worries that the company's relative well-being might serve as an impediment to healthy change. "We felt that we could become victims of our own success by embracing the false assumption that the traditional ways of doing things would continue to power our growth," Larsen says. To avoid this pitfall, Larsen established a proactive change program that assigns teams made up of senior managers from the different global operating divisions to meet together for several days at special sessions. The sole purpose of these gatherings is the discussion of possible changes that might benefit the company. Larsen says that the team-structured change brainstorming process has proven a gold mine of new ideas and brought great enthusiasm for change. "There is a receptiveness to deal with change that did not exist five years ago."
====================================================
For other information, try the Change Management Resource Library at
http://www.change-management.org.