Why all change is harm
|
Hey Reader, Last week, the Ways We Learn Podcast released an episode where I spoke to host Sean Dagony-Clark about organizational change. Before we got around to discussing how anyone can structure a presentation or learning experience to create behavioral change in participants and attendees (which is the whole reason I was there), we spent a good chunk of time talking about behavioral and organizational change theory in general. Because, as I’m sure you know, change is hard. Changing habits is hard, leading change is hard, catalyzing change is hard, planning for change is hard, and being asked or forced to change is hard. Which led me to one of my (apparently) most controversial points: that all change is harmWhen Sean shared a clip of us talking about change = harm on LinkedIn, there were quite a few comments on his post — and not everyone agreed with me (love it)! “For those who are struggling with the equivalency of CHANGE and HARM, I offer the possibility that what doesn’t sit right could be considering this equivalency without also considering up front how POWER is related. What I hear, and cheer: ALL CHANGE CAUSES HARM. To SOMEONE who benefits from or has power in the current state. Even if it’s not you. And also: even positive change creates STRESS, which hits some of us harder than others.” “This sent me to my favorite resource, etymonline - the etymology dictionary online. I had such a reaction to the word HARM. It comes from the Old English HEARM meaning hurt, pain, evil, grief, insult. I wonder if part of my reaction has to do with my wiring to the binary of harm as something negative…and while change does bring around disruption, disappointment, discomfort, it also brings opportunity, creativity and innovation. I’m going to sit with this for a bit.” “I can’t say that I would agree that all change is ‘harm’… I would agree that even change we choose can feel difficult and overwhelming, scary and uncertain. With that, [Sean’s] sentiment [in his post] resonates for sure, ‘effective organizational change requires deep empathy for the people changing’…absolutely.” “I’ve always struggled with the ‘pain of change’ analogy, probably because it’s true. I loved the point that it is happening WITH them, not TO them…and our role as leaders is to make that true. Supporting our teams through the change by making the benefits of it REAL (not just talking points) is the challenge!” “This is one of those ideas that forces to me to sit digest and reflect. The use of the word harm in this context stirred something in me and it wasn’t a defense. It’s sparked a curiosity that I need to unpack.” Whew! (P.S. — You can watch a clip of us talking about change = harm here and catch the full episode wherever you get your podcasts or at welearn.fm.) So what do I mean when I say that all change is harm?Put simply, harm is physical or mental damage. Damage is loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation. Injury is hurt, damage, or loss sustained (source: all Merriam-Webster). This is why I say change is harm rather than just loss (as many of my colleagues do). When change occurs, whether intentional (like designing and implementing a new process at work) or unintentional (any sort of crisis or surprise), positive or negative (or somewhere in between), it disrupts homeostasis, a relatively stable state of equilibrium (or a tendency toward such a state) between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of a person or group. It disrupts balance (or our best efforts at balance). This disruption (the physical or psychological stimuli of a change taking place) results in a stress response (I’m sure you know what it feels like to be stressed, but you can read a brief overview of the stress response and its impacts here.) The change can be anything that moves individuals from their current status quo to a future state: a fire alarm, hiring new members of a team, a product launch, a new CEO, hosting a big donor event, traveling for work, or developing and rolling out new company values. Whether the change is positive or negative doesn’t matter; what matters is that homeostasis is disrupted, activating a stress response. The expectation of our minds and bodies is that after the change is “done” (the stimulus is removed), we transition away from the stress response and return to homeostasis. But when was the last time you felt homeostasis — balance — at work? Or at home? Or online? Constant and overlapping stress responses = harm. What about positive stress?Positive stress, or eustress, must be short-lived and (most importantly) whether the stress is positive or not is up to the person experiencing the stress. That’s why those “we’re so happy to announce ___ and you should be happy about it too!” emails from leadership rarely land well. No one else can decide whether a stimulus should cause you eustress or distress. All change (even positive change) still causes disruption: whatever you were doing or thinking or feeling, the very nature of change means that you must begin to do, think, or feel differently. If you’re already in a state of disruption (burnout, Covid, tired, hungry, caregiving, war, deadlines, interpersonal conflict, sick, commutes, the last organizational change…need I go on?), even minor or positive changes cause further disruption — harm — eliciting an additional stress response, which means homeostasis moves further out of reach. And painting stress as a black and white binary of either good or bad is pretty pointless, as anyone who has gone through a “positive” life change (like getting married, having a baby, launching a business, starting a new job, or moving to a new city) knows. If all change is harm, what are leaders supposed to do?When I work with leaders to design change strategies, part of our approach is to reduce harm, disruption, and distress. We build trust proactively, define transparency, and provide clarity. When harm does occur, we repair it before we cause more. In my change work, one of the antidotes to what I refer to as harm is compassion: a sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it. When leaders (do their best to) alleviate the challenges and burdens of their changes, it creates a smoother path forward. We want to go beyond mere empathy and take action to remove and reduce barriers to change with our change strategy. But what if the change is bad, or we have deadlines, or our competition is pummeling us, or we have to roll out multiple changes at one time?What matters is that your strategy is designed to reduce harm as much as possible and maintain or return to balance. Negative changes can still have compassionate strategies. Competing priorities or tight timelines can still channel compassion as a driving force. And finally: why can't people just be more resilient? Why is it the leader's responsibility to manage everyone's stress levels?It's not. But in my opinion, it is a leader's responsibility to not harm the people over whom they have power and control. It is a leader's responsibility to create an environment in which work stress can be mostly eustress and where homeostasis isn't a dream. The choice is up to leaders to make that change, and start changing the way they change for the better. Talk soon, Caitlin P.S. — As I build out Commcoterie’s content and resources for 2025, tell me: what are the biggest challenges you face when it comes to leading and navigating change? Want to change how you receive these emails? |