Managing Change: what the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the rest of the world calls the butterfly

Article by Massimo Berlingozzi – “Managing Change” – OCTOBER 2018_ LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT

Many years ago Konrad Lorenz, the famous Viennese ethologist who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1973, told a very interesting story during one of his lectures. The protagonists of this story are two dogs, the first walking with his master, the second in the garden of his owners’ villa. The meeting between the two dogs took place every day, because the path of the dog walking with his master coincided for a certain stretch with the fence of the villa. At the approach of contact, the two dogs invariably challenged each other in a highly aggressive manner and this behaviour continued until the end of the fence, after which they returned peacefully to their various occupations. Until one day, in the middle of their dispute, they found the gate open. And what do the two dogs do, finally able to turn their long-expressed aggression into action? They go back, until they find the net that separates them, and resume doing what they have always done. The moral of this story, only seemingly paradoxical, is very clear, and the ensuing reflection very rich in meaning because of the analogies with the behaviour of individuals and organisations.

Aware of the difficulties: Resistance to change

.
Resistance to change is a very common phenomenon and, to some extent, quite normal, but it is important to fully understand its significance. The first answer comes to us from biology: living systems need to create their own internal organisation independent of environmental perturbations. This mechanism, which goes by the name of homeostasis, allows us to converse with the environment while maintaining a stable internal balance. But what happens when the internal equilibrium proves to be no longer functional to stronger, or completely unexpected, demands for change coming from the environment? It is precisely in these cases that resistance to change manifests itself through ineffective behaviour and paradoxical solutions. The main objective of this hardening is the attempt to keep established response strategies intact, even if they are now openly dysfunctional.

Why does all this happen? There are many reasons: from the aim of saving energy, to the search for the seemingly simplest solution, to the refusal to change patterns, models and organisations intimately linked to the identity of the subject in question. The reason why we have so far expressed ourselves in deliberately neutral terms is because these considerations are equally applicable to human beings, groups, organisations and complex systems in general. The sampling of examples would be vast, but it is necessary to take another step to try to be more precise.

Error and stereotyped behaviour: ‘Greater dose of the same remedy’

.
We could succinctly summarise the phenomenon of resistance to change as the attempt to apply the same solution despite drastically changed external circumstances. But in truth, one almost always tries to do something more, and the expression ‘more’ in this case is as appropriate as ever. In fact, when change management becomes critical, we do not only witness a substantial inability to ‘change the pattern’ in the search for possible alternatives, resistance also manifests itself through the often completely sterile attempt to address the problem by increasing the force (quantitative increase) that is applied to the old solutions. Those who study change often summarise this concept with the phrase ‘increased dose of the same remedy’. There are many examples we can give: in the medical field, the limits of the possibility of combating a disease through the administration of a certain substance are well known; beyond a certain measure, it is not possible to continue to increase the doses, or else cause greater damage. The same thing happens in agriculture with pesticides. We could then cite examples in the technological sphere, but also in the world of organisations, groups and companies, where, in the face of changes that are now inevitable, more means, more people and more money do not always guarantee good results, when they do not herald resounding failures.

To change the scheme, to look at things from a new point of view, to change paradigm, seems to be the real difficulty: “I talk to you and you don’t understand me, I repeat it but you still don’t understand what I want to say to you, then I start to raise my voice, and then I shout and get upset”, but the result does not change. There is no difference, on a conceptual level, between this tiny example of everyday life and the emblematic story of Kodak. It was one of its engineers (Steven Sasson) who created the first prototype digital camera in 1975, but the company board rejected that project, because it rendered useless the object (the film) that was at the origin of that company’s history, identity and success. In 2012, Kodak, a giant of North American business, declared bankruptcy. Small everyday experiences and big systems tie in admirably in conveying to us this bizarre rule at the root of many failures: ‘more of the same remedy’.

What to do? Intervention strategies

We have learnt that change is a complex and delicate phenomenon at the same time, that resistance to change has a very human meaning, that this phenomenon cannot be attacked by force. Change resists quantitative increases, it asks us to generate a ‘different quality’. The true process of change is determined by a ‘logical leap’, the ability to look at the same problem from a new perspective, from a different point of view. Dick Fosbury’s ‘shrimping’ jump at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics is a wonderful summary of what we are talking about.

At this point, however, a question must be asked: should we resign ourselves to ingenious and extemporary solutions, or is it possible to construct a practical model of intervention? The nature of change is such that it is very difficult to devise a ‘method’ that can deal with any situation. It is possible, however, to precisely identify some important steps that can create the right premises for constructing an effective intervention strategy. Let us try to do this by delving into some fundamental concepts:

Awareness: although seemingly obvious, but by no means taken for granted, a good level of awareness is a fundamental element to be able to effectively manage the change process. The first difficulty lies in a correct and lucid vision of the problem, aimed at identifying precisely and concretely the current position and the necessary steps to be taken to implement change. This first analysis, which could be described as quite rational, is followed by a path of awareness aimed at understanding the resistances that have arisen, or that we can foresee, together with any attempted (and failed) solutions. It is easy at this point to understand (and experience further confirms this) that some of these steps often make external help indispensable: coach, therapist, counsellor, etc., depending on the different contexts we can imagine.

Motivation: a full and sincere motivation, represents the indispensable ‘fuel’ to face a journey that in some cases can be long and tiring. The most frequent mistake, in these cases, is to think that one can impose change. Sense, freedom and responsibility are the words that should guide the search for true motivation. Nobody can replace us in building the necessary motivation, which is why it is important that the meaning of our commitment is not imposed on us. Everyone must search for the value and meaning of their actions in full freedom, through a conscious assumption of responsibility.

Nature of resistance: Understanding the nature of resistance is a very important step in building an effective strategy. Sometimes resistance is a problem of a purely cognitive nature: a lack of flexibility on the part of the interpretative models of the reality we face. The best resource in these situations is creativity, and there are many creative techniques that can be of great help for this purpose. Certainly more complex is the situation when the resistance is of an emotional-identity nature. In these cases, the defence often takes on a conflictual valence, because the subject (individual or group) feels threatened on the level of values, to the point of experiencing the change as the complete abandonment of the purposes and motivations underlying his or her identity.

It takes intelligence and a great deal of sensitivity to deal with these situations strategically, as well as great respect for the behaviour and words of the subjects involved, because they represent an attempt to preserve an identity that has been painstakingly achieved. The most effective techniques, and at the same time the most elegant in these situations, are the psychological strategies of “restructuring the problem”, the treatment of which goes beyond the limits of this space, we can however mention the important work by Watzlawick, Weakland, Fisch, “Change”, published in Italy in 1974, which garnered great interest among practitioners. Within this text you can find an extensive discussion of the ‘subtle art of restructuring’.

The challenges of the future will increasingly ask us to ‘change our skin’, to change our organisational culture, to embrace new experiences, to acquire new knowledge. We can be guided on this journey by an awareness of the complex and often paradoxical nature of change-related phenomena, which do not like to be attacked by force. If we want to have people at our side who are motivated to undertake these changes, we must be able to indicate precisely where we are, where we want to go, and the path necessary to get there.