Rationalising the irrational

In the UK, a general election has led to a change of government after 14 years, requiring a handover from one administration to another. Organisations, be they governmental, non-governmental or private, tend to undergo formal change processes more frequently. This might be the appointment of a new leader or leadership team, merging with another organisation, being acquired by a larger organisation, undergoing a restructure, or in some cases, all of the above.

Change provokes a variety of (contradicting) reactions amongst members of an organisation. They experience loss, of familiar and predictable work practices and patterns of relating; of identity at both an individual and organisational level; as well as sources of self-esteem. For instance, during a merger, each party will experience loss of their previous identity, fear that they will no longer be recognised as well as fear of imposition by another party. Loyalties and informal networks are often undermined. Staff experience insecurity about their job, their status and their competence in new conditions. The anticipation and/or reality of change can be perceived as terrifying.

But despite the uncertainty, change also presents new opportunities, which can generate excitement and enthusiasm. Generally then, during change processes, there is often depression because something is lost, elation because something new is coming and plenty of anxiety because the future is uncertain. As such, drawing on the cycle of life, change simultaneously requires staff to prepare for the birth of something new, potentially exciting, which will change their lives and to mourn something that has ended, that is no more. 

However, change also means the dismantling of certain approaches people use to manage stress and make sense of their circumstances (which in the psychologically informed organisational consulting world are called social defences). These might include close knit teams, targets, areas of responsibility, reporting lines, annual appraisal systems as well as informal networks, meals with colleagues in the staff canteen and exchanges on WhatsApp amongst other things.

While these structures and practices facilitate work, they also help people to manage and ‘contain’ the emotional impact the work has on them. So change undermines the very structures and practices that might keep members from being overwhelmed by anxiety so that the change can succeed.

Furthermore, leaders are often required to help their staff cope with emotional challenges. But they themselves are likely to be subject to high levels of anxiety, diminishing their capacity to attend to that of others.

Organisation and their leaders tend to avoid anticipating and addressing the emotional impact of change efforts, as people’s reactions tend to be seen as irrational, an unwanted side effect or a sign of failure. When anxiety levels rise, and with no space to e.g. grieve the past and invest emotionally in the future, people tend to think in quite rigid, concrete terms. Leaders, managers and staff consequently ‘see’ their own unwanted feelings in others, instead of recognising them in themselves.

This gives way to tribes or factions. Some may hold an idealised or even utopian picture of the future with a focus on the benefits, demeaning the past and present. Others might experience cynicism, despair and a lack of confidence, idealising the past. Such behaviour helps to relieve tension and reduce confusion temporarily and bolsters a sense of belonging and identity. Yet others, experiencing apathy may be inclined to avoid the fight and withdraw from the process entirely.

In this sort of environment, people are often under pressure to choose the positive future. Individuals or sub-groups who don’t see the change as compelling or express doubt/criticism might be considered disloyal, a resistor, or a troublemaker. They might then be influenced by others to act in ways that contributes to them being ignored or scapegoated.  

Senior leaders, who are usually responsible for prompting changes in the first place often lead the tribe focusing on future benefits. They might expect significant change in short time frames, see themselves as heroic and use superficial ideologies, which get repeated like mantras to avoid struggle or sidestep painful difficulties. Leaders might deny or turn a blind eye to the human consequences or simply blame those below them in the hierarchy (middle managers). Or feeling somewhat helpless, leaders might hire consultants and expect them to take control drawing on similar approaches.  

In some cases, managers of the change might feel the changes are being imposed on them by those more senior and that while they don’t agree with them, they must implement them. They subsequently deflect e.g. anger and rage of the staff onto more senior leaders. Leaders might then be reviled and held responsible for events and outcomes. In sum, efforts to change can lead to genuinely disturbing and psychologically threatening organisational environments, which in turn leads to a sense of ‘stuckness’ with change processes often grinding to a halt.

For instance, within the European Commission, a restructure of how it managed its development aid in 2011, resulting in the merger of some directorate generals and the creation of new institutions, fostered intense conflict over turf and competencies between staff who in the past had worked alongside each other, and were in some cases, friends, for decades.

In another example, an NGO I consulted to saw a new leadership team take up their role during the pandemic. They had to form new relationships with the wider staff and adapt to a more difficult financial and operational environment, which included ‘returning to work’ after repeated pandemic related lockdowns. During meetings with the senior leadership team and the wider staff, I noted the former were critical of the previous leadership while the latter felt the heart had gone out of the organisation with their departure.

I wondered if staff had idealised the previous leadership, feeling that the creative impulse that sustained the organisation had disappeared with their departure, while also feeling abandoned. The new leadership were seen as the ‘bad parents’ coming to destroy what was good. The incoming leadership team on the other hand seemed to have denigrated the previous leadership and the practices they oversaw and idealised the future, seeing only the benefits of the changes they had proposed.

Although conflict and disorder can sometimes give way to forces that can be creative as well as destructive, positive outcomes are more likely to emerge if leaders slow down the change process, hold up a mirror to the organisation and pay attention to emotional data. Making space to hear and work with difficult feelings takes time and is often seen to slow down the changes that are seen as necessary. However, doing so can ease the emotional difficulty of change but also make it more sustainable.

For instance, staff need space to explore and give voice to what they’ve lost through e.g. leadership transitions, restructures or mergers. In these spaces the challenge for staff is to take back their negative perceptions and unfair expectations of certain individuals and sub-groups. They need to grieve the past, which requires detaching one’s sense of purpose from the past and reformulating it so that there can be a sense of continuity of identity, belonging and also self-esteem. Resistance might be reframed where leaders and staff are asked how are they (the perceived resistor) right? New relationships and practices require integration while ambivalent responses need exploring.

In a merger, staff might generate a ‘them and us’ dynamic, which may help people cope with uncertainty and vulnerability, but it gets in the way of being able to make the best use of available talent and expertise and damages efforts to integrate. Staff thus need to expand and change their idea of who they see as colleagues, so that new people no longer have the status of outsiders - and be perceived as incompetent, weak or uncooperative.

When leaders (and staff) have moved into a thinking space, they are more able to assess reality from multiple perspectives, identify a wider range of options and take decisions and actions which are more in tune with both the staff and the organisation’s purpose. At some point, leaders will need to articulate a plausible and compelling picture of a future that is commonly shared and understood, but which also acknowledges the past – promoting simultaneously both change and continuity. This entails a process of persuading staff that certain actions are necessary.

In a reflective state, staff are able to adopt a more hopeful attitude toward the future, along with a sober appreciation of the challenges involved in achieving new approaches. And they are more able to take responsibility over their actions, rather than feel a sense of imposition. But doing this requires:

• establishing specially designed structures to contain the emotions generated during the change process and enable the organisation to function as effectively as it can

• significant time to effect substantive change

• acknowledging that the redirection of people’s energy to sense making is likely to have an impact on the organisation’s work and productivity

These in turn calls for resisting pressure to move the process forward quickly and living with the fact that one doesn’t know exactly how the process might unfold – a quality known as negative capability. Managers will inevitably take actions that in hindsight will be seen as mistakes or having unintended consequences. This needs to be tolerated, while so too must making changes and adjustments along the way – going against the grain of orthodox management ideas that everything can be predicted and planned. External consultants can help by making themselves available to contain the emotional needs of the organisation.

In the example of the NGO above, I facilitated a fortnightly meeting which provided space for the newly formed senior leadership team to talk freely about the circumstances they found themselves in, and to connect formally for the first time with members of the wider staff group. This helped to move the leadership team into a more reflective state, more curious about each other’s experience as well as that of the wider staff group.

By attending to both the human and technical aspects of change, leaders can navigate the complexities with greater empathy and effectiveness. Remember, change is not just about systems and processes; it's also about people and their emotions.