Big Change, Small Conversations
As conversation supersedes process, listening builds credibility and trust.
Last month, two of my coaching clients had questions for me on navigating change. Emily was Hong Kong based, and moving into a global management position. Scott lived in China, and was asked to spearhead a global merger from Shanghai. Both were high performers, worked in entirely different industries — and called me the same week, a day apart with almost identical concerns. That was odd enough to dig further.
When I’d spoken with Scott, he first mentioned “I can’t believe it — we’re going through another restructure.” With Emily, it was “I can’t believe it — I’ve finally landed the perfect role.” She’d been promoted every two years, and thus familiar with leadership transitions. Scott had led previous mergers, and recognized the potential chaos which could ensue. Both were excited with their new targets, both caught up in the emotional upheavals of change, embarking on their next career phase. They’d been through similar situations and didn’t anticipate too many problems, but were calling for help.
Whether a new role or restructure, it’s never as straightforward as expected. Emily and Scott’s organizations had designed processes to lead change with frameworks, detailed plans, levers to pull, steps to follow. Their respective company’s focus was the process side of change, but little on EQ or the more (hard-boiled) political side of resistance. With every change, there are real — or perceived — imbalances of power. The functional and the personal.
Their questions made me think about how we all try to manage change for ourselves — and others. Kurt Lewin designed a three stage model in the late 1940’s, and in 1995, John Kotter added eight more steps for leading change. They’d both provided a planned approach, a check-list of sorts to keep the status-quo while pushing through change. Lewin was criticized for overlooking the political and power dynamics of change, and Kotter’s more prescriptive model appeared machine-like. Both seem to miss the human side — the feelings and experiences of the employee in a time of turmoil.
Both of these coaching clients had to follow a corporate process, but their success depends ultimately on people, not process. Every change is uniquely human, with ideas, attitudes and timelines, along with the (often overlooked) power dynamics and organizational complexities. Some executives can suddenly find themselves on the other side of change — going for a quick fix or skipping over the significance of personal issues. To come out ahead, my coaching clients needed to incorporate a people-first principle, rather than just their process-led template.
As conversation supersedes process, listening builds credibility and trust. With an impending change, we focus on our own issues, our livelihood and what might come next. When uncertainty starts, the frequency of conversation must increase, or everyone becomes far too preoccupied to hear anyone else. People just need to vent, more so during a time of change.
If you hear yourself saying, ‘oh, this won’t be a problem’ or ‘I’ve seen this movie before’ at the start of a corporate change, then you’ve hit the denial stage of change. This should trigger you to pause and listen. Take a step back and listen to what the team thinks, feels, or believes. It may well be frustration, followed by “This isn’t working out the way I expected.” Every step of any change process is an opportunity to build empathy for yourself and others. Let others blow off steam and don’t try to find the solution. Just listen, without interrupting, judging or agreeing. In Fred Dust’s book, Making Conversation: Seven Essential Elements of Meaningful Communication, he suggests ‘creative listening’, that is, paying greater attention to clues, reactions, emotions, and feelings. For Scott and Emily, it wasn’t about having them explain leadership or directional change, but to simply observe and listen. As Dust recommends, “When we listen in this way, we are actively searching for the clues for creation.” Any change works best when the outcome is co-created.
If you sense frustration, anger or confusion with your team, you might start predicting how things could go awry. Leaders will often (and understandably) lean towards the positive, explaining the upside of an impending change. But prudence dictates. Before stating the pluses, let others air what’s likely to not work. Negative feelings, sadness or worry is seldom talked of openly at the office, but change — positive or negative — brings those feelings to the fore, and should never be discounted. Quashing them is only counterproductive, so best to just let the emotions flow.
According to the National Science Foundation, we average 12,000 to 60,000 thoughts per day. Of these, 80% are negative, and 95% of our concerns are baseless; much of what we worry about almost never happens. Too often at work, we downplay our feelings, forgetting that emotions help us make social connections. Talking through experiences, positive or negative, reduces intensity and creates ownership. Dust’s communication approach is simply a people- first principle, putting values aside (but not ignoring them). That may sound contradictory, as we show up to every conversation with our values out in front. There’s nothing wrong with showing your values, but dialogue about change should allow everyone to understand the viewpoints of others without positioning oneself against different perspectives. Dust focuses on rebuilding the human connection in a time of opposing views and distrust. To support one’s employees is to suspend from voicing your values. Test your assumptions and then decide what’s needed to navigate another direction.
After listening, co-create a solution or decide what might help to build ownership, from frustration to ‘testing’ comments (“Let me see how this plays out”). At this point, employees may be more pragmatic with alternatives but still need to know their back is covered.
If there’s less of a focus on what ‘used to be’ and more acceptance of change (a new boss or a new way of working), you’ll see your team’s strengths, resilience and fortitude, the shift from listening to questioning. And, find opportunities for development.
As I coached Scott and Emily, they both said some team members could fully embrace the change, others would move forward and some would fall flat on their backs. As I mentioned, change is never straightforward — we all go through twists and turns, on our own timeline. Recognizing the individual highs and lows requires awareness and observation, listening to the loud, the calm or the quiet voice. Listening is more than mere participation. What’s important is that those on your team know they’ve been heard, that their involvement impacts decision-making, and an opinion can actually influence an outcome.
With Scott we focused on Dust’s 7 Elements, coupled with Nancy Kline’s, ‘’listening to ignite’’ change. For Emily, we co-designed a transition plan with a series of reflective questions for each stakeholder. With each conversation, the goal is to listen attentively and inquire genuinely. Following the words of Wynton Marsalis, ‘’There’s no script. It’s conversation.”
