I’ve been told that I am not the best role model concerning change. I agree with the characterization. I initially balk at the mere idea of change — holding on to hope that the change won’t come to pass. In that case, adjusting my course will not be necessary. As you may have read in this post, I’ve sometimes struggled to cope with change — muddling along until the “new normal”finally appears.
However, regardless of my predisposition, I firmly acknowledge the value of flexing our workplace “change muscles”.
For better or worse, my “go to” reaction is to keep things frozen — until I can carefully consider every aspect of the situation. Unfortunately, holding time at bay usually isn’t an option.
I believe that we all have a leading predisposition when faced with change in our work environment — and this represents both our collected experiences and temperament. Of course, this influences our leading strategy when reacting to change as well. That’s where things get tricky. (If you manage others, just reflect on what this means for your team.) We need to come to an understanding of our own tendency and recognize how this affects our response.
The realization that we tend toward one or the another, is a crucial step. I’m sure we moderate slightly with the nature of the change — but we all lean one way or another.
Here are the predispositions I’ve observed over the years:
- Piners or Grievers. These individuals lament the coming of change, even when it is inevitable or necessary. They may grieve for the roles, policies, procedures and co-workers of days gone by. They do move on eventually — but often with decreased fulfillment, satisfaction and a measure of sadness.
- Researchers. An unbridled penchant to gather information is the leading response for this group — as looking at the issue from all angles often helps them move on. Unfortunately, a leading by-product of this view is “analysis paralysis”. Another issue: time may not be a negotiable. (This would be where I fall.)
- Supporters or Embracers. These individuals are generally open to change and feel excited to contemplate the future. They may not be the primary driver of change, yet are happy to see the possibilities and help things move forward.
- Alarmists. For these individuals an impending change triggers intense feelings of urgency. This could lead to premature or risky career behaviors that negatively affect them longer-term. (Such as quitting on a whim, etc.)
- Dreamers. This group always manages to see the best in the current situation, even when there is overwhelming evidence to move on and accept some kind of change. (I would add there is a mild level of complacency operating here). Because of this perspective, they might miss opportunities to properly plan a place for themselves in the new “order” of things.
- Observers. Usually quiet and calm, these individuals take a solid “wait and see” approach. They rarely panic — and prefer to watch things unfold organically. They might superficially support the change, but may eventually exit if the change is perceived as negative.
- Aggressors or Terminators. These individuals feel anger when they are faced with an unexpected change. They may become a strong “naysayer”, vehemently opposing a change and could exhibit negative behaviors without reflection.
After I drafted these, I searched for other frameworks that capture how we process change. I happened upon the Kubler-Ross Change Curve, which applies the seminal model of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross concerning grief, to change efforts within organizations. (This theory states that we all move through specified phases when dealing with change, rather than identifying a leading emotion that we deal with over time.) I thought it wise to mention it here.
Where do you fall? Have I missed your leading tendency? Share your style in comments.
Dr. Marla Gottschalk is an Industrial & Organizational Psychologist. She is a Consulting Psychologist at Allied Talent. A charter member of the LinkedIn Influencer Program, her posts on workplace topics have appeared at The Huffington Post, US News & World Report and The World Economic Forum