In a classic article, ‘The Death Valley of Change’ (2001), Elrod and Tippett show amazing similarity across multiple change related studies; that motivation, engagement, happiness, morale, and sometimes health, lower when people are impacted by change. This included planned, unplanned, and even voluntary change; one study examined Peace Corps volunteers working abroad for a year. The authors make the point that the ‘Death Valley’ (the curve most famously represented by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross) is almost certainly inevitable, although leaders can take steps to reduce the damage by carefully preparing followers and acting as a ‘pathfinder and scout’ through transition. Multiple change frameworks have been developed to support the planning and leadership of change, with perhaps the most well know being Kotter’s 8 Steps. Change managers find these models helpful as aides to planning, but their inclusion doesn’t guarantee success in change management, not least as many have been developed in the context of delivering unidirectional, top-down change initiatives in the last century.
One explanation for the dip in motivation that people experience through change is provided by Ryan and Deci in Self Determination Theory (2018). A theory built on decades of research in motivation, it states that this is significantly influenced by our inherent need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Top down, autocratically led change, or unwelcome disruptions in technology or governance, are likely to have a negative impact on these needs. One framework that engages with this to some extent is Hiatt’s (2006) ADKAR model (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement), as it has a focus on engaging colleagues and building consensus for the change, the Desire part of the process. However, does this allow for disagreement and dissent? What happens if people feel strongly that the change is poorly conceived or wrong? The framework works on the assumption that the change is going to happen, but that it will go more smoothly if people buy into it. There is still an autocratic assumption to the approach.
Here I propose an alternative approach to change, which leans into dissent and disagreement. Until I think of something better, I’m calling it a ‘Negotiated Theory of Change’. The approach happens before the change is executed and may be uncomfortable in places, but will pay back dividends, as it acknowledges and responds to our colleagues’ fundamental need to be included and have some control.
5 Key Steps to Cultivating a Negotiated Approach to Organisational Change:
Step 1: Identify the vision for change, and the strategy to get there. Think carefully about why the change is necessary; what crucial problem is it solving? Create a compelling vision for the future, and a realistic, resourced, strategy or roadmap to achieve it.
Step 2: Invite debate. Bring stakeholders together in focus group type discussions. Present the change as an invitation, not an autocratic direction. Open the floor up to debate and discussion. Genuinely listen to people’s criticisms and concerns and lean into the discussion with curiosity rather than defensiveness. The effectiveness of this will depend on the levels of psychological safety in the groups, and it may be a challenging process to go through.
Step 3: Revise the strategy. Reflect on people’s challenges and objections. Perhaps with the support of an external sounding board, identify the points that have genuine merit, and the ones which may be coming from a place of fear. Where possible, synthesize the valid points into the vision and strategy; this may improve the change initiative, or you may need to compromise on a few aspects of the change. Where people have shown fear or concern, consider how to reassure them in the communications, if possible.
Step 4: Communicate the adapted strategy and reinvite discussion. This is an opportunity to show that people have been listened to, and their points acknowledged. It is unlikely that total consensus will be reached. However, if individuals’ contributions from Step 2 are clearly reflected in the evolved plan, there should be more support as people will have some ownership over what comes next.
Step 5: Deliver the change. Effective execution of change involves proper resourcing, role modelling and effective leadership, training and coaching, measurement, and evaluation of data. This is where the aforementioned change frameworks and professional project management come into play. Many change initiatives fail because they aren’t resourced realistically (busy people are asked to deliver the change on top of the day job), or because progress isn’t effectively measured and communicated.
This framework doesn’t replace Kotter and others; it is more an ideal to synthesise into the change planning process. The key additional consideration is to acknowledge that engaging with critique and challenge may improve the initiative, whilst also giving some control and ownership to colleagues and wider stakeholders that will be impacted by the change and may ultimately need to contribute to the work in delivering it.
References:
Elrod, P.D, & Tippett, D.D. (2002). The ’Death Valley’ of change. Journal of organisational change management, 15 (3): 273-291.
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
