Change creates anxiety, uncertainty and stress, even for those managing change, and even if they are fully committed to change. Seldom are there any guarantees that the new approach will work and will deliver the goods! Those who wish change to be successful often find themselves working long hours, dealing with problems, trying to overcome the doubts of others and doing everything needed to see the changes through.

In working life, change and role strain are two important sources of stress. Role strain can be caused by not being involved in decisions, having inadequate managerial support, having to cope with technological or other changes, having to maintain standards of performance even under difficult circumstances, having responsibility for people who are uncooperative; all likely in a period of change! In non-working life "moving home" is a key source of stress and this sometimes flows from change. Thus we should not be surprised by the links between change and stress.

The coping cycle of change can be listed under five main stages:

Denial: When significant changes are first mooted the initial response may be to deny the need for change: "We have always done things this way." "Why change, we are making a profit aren't we?" "Don't change a winning team." "We tried that before but it did not work." "You will never make it work." Faced with the possibility of changes people will often find value in their present circumstances, often in work situations, which they would bitterly complain about at other times. That this is paradoxical should not surprise us. Our actions are impelled by complex and often contradictory motivations. If major changes come suddenly and dramatically, then paralysis can often result. Generally, in the denial stage there is a warning period and performance will not decline immediately. One way of handling this stage is to minimise the immediate impact of the change. This allows people time to face up to the new reality.

Defence: When the realities of change become clearer people must begin to face new tasks, working for a new boss or with a different group of people, perhaps in a different department or a new location. Thus they become aware that they must come to terms with the way in which they work, and perhaps with more general changes in life. This can lead to feelings of depression and frustration because it can be difficult to decide how to deal with these changes. This stage is often characterised by defensive behaviour. People may attempt to defend their own job, their own territory. Often this will be an articulated as ritualistic behaviour.

Discarding: There now emerges a process of discarding. The preceding stages have focused powerfully on the past. Now people begin to let go of the past and look forward to the future. We do not know how this happens. We know that support can be helpful, as can providing people with the opportunity to experiment with new systems without the pressure of formal training programs, and so on. Now it is possible for optimistic feelings to emerge. It may well be that the discarding process is impelled by an awakening sense that the present anxieties are just too much to bear, or that perhaps the future is not as forbidding as it first seemed. Now we may observe behaviour, which appears to identify the individual with the changes, involved, who start to talk openly and constructively about the new system, who will ask questions about it. And they may begin to solve problems, take the initiative and even demonstrate some leadership. Thus it is that self-esteem improves.

Discarding is initially a process of perception. People come to see that the change is both inevitable and/or necessary. It becomes apparent to them. Adaptation starts with recognition. The crisis of change creates great tensions for those involved. Discarding involves experimenting and risk. Time is needed for individuals to recreate their own sense of identity and self-esteem as they "grow" into the new situation.

Adaptation: Now a process of mutual adaptation emerges. Rarely do new systems, procedures, structures or machines work effectively first time. Individuals begin to test the new situation and themselves, trying out new behaviours, working to different standards, working out ways of coping with the changes. Other individuals also adapt. Fellow workers, supervisors and managers all learn as the new system is tried out. Finally, technical and operational problems are identified and modifications made to deal with them; thus progress is made.

Significant amounts of energy are involved here. The process of trial and error, of effort and set back, and the slow building of performance, can often be a source of real frustration. In these circumstances people can demonstrate anger. This is not resistance to change. Rather, it is the natural consequence of trying to make a new system work, experiencing partial (or complete) failure, which may or may not be under the control of the individuals concerned. This anger does not result in attempts to oppose but, rather, articulates the feelings of those trying to make the new system work.

Internalisation: Now the people involved have created a new system, process and organisation. New relationships between people and processes have been tried, modified and accepted. These now become incorporated into an understanding of the new work situation. This is a cognitive process through which people make sense of what has happened. Now the new behaviour becomes part of "normal" behaviour.

It appears that people experience change in these ways, initially as disturbance, perhaps even as shock, then coming to accept its reality - testing it out and engaging in a process of mutual adaptation and finally coming to terms with the change. Self esteem and performance varies, initially declining and then growing again. The variation of performance flow from mutually reinforcing individual and operational causes. The "engine" for rebuilding performance is the self-esteem of the people involved.

Finally, I do not suggest that people go through these stages neatly, or that all go through them at the same time or at the same rate. Some may not go beyond the denial stage of change. The important point is that people do seem to experience significant changes in these ways and that this leads to a number of practical ways in which the problems of coping can be handled.

Coping with the process of change places demands on the individuals involved, various issues need to be faced either by these individuals or by their managers. Note, however, that these issues are of concern to all affected by an organisational change, including managers.

Know yourself: Would I have chosen for this to happen? Do I accept it? Can I benefit from the changes? What is the worst that can happen to me? Do I know what I want? Do I know what I don't want? What skills and abilities do I possess? How Might I develop new skills? Have I experienced similar changes? How did I cope? Can I take the initiative? Can I cope with stress? Am I able to handle conflict? Can I avoid conflict? How well do I manage my time? Do I blame myself? Do I take stock of my situation? Am I prepared to reflect on myself and how I feel about change? Do I expect others (perhaps managers or union representatives) to deal with these issues?

Know your situation: Can I describe the situation? Can I explain the new systems? For my own work area? For the department as a whole? Can I explain why the changes are necessary? Do I know how I am expected to behave? What standards of performance will be required? Who will I work with? Who will I report to? Who will I be responsible for? Can I try out the new system in advance? Is it possible for me to experiment with the new system? To learn by trial and error?

Know others who can help: Is there benefit in talking things over with family, friends, or colleagues? With my manager? With strangers?

Working on self-esteem: Test out ideas and beliefs. Talk out issues with yourself! Let go of the past. Accept that this will create a sense of loss. Set goals, act, and look for gains.

The above are the issues involved. Nobody says it is easy. Not every issues is applicable to every change introduced. However, these issues help us cope with change. Simplifying somewhat, there are four main categories of need for individuals if they are to rebuild their self-esteem amidst a programme of organisational change. They need to understand the changes and thus need intelligible information. They will probably need to develop new skills, if only the skills of dealing with new people as colleagues and supervisors. They will need to support to help them to deal with problems. Encouragement to try out new systems is important.

People need to understand the new system if they are to understand their own part in it. Information must be shared if people are to judge the impact of changes upon themselves and upon their jobs. People need time to get through a major change. This is especially true if the change requires them to solve problems. Spend time with people. It is important to listen to their views. They may know better than you do about the details of a particular job, system or work area. Whether, when, to what extent, and how people are involved in a change situation needs careful thought because there are both advantages and disadvantages.

1. Improved decisions because people have better detailed knowledge of jobs and systems.

2. People will better understand the aims of the change, and the working of new systems.

3. Creates a feeling of ownership.

4. Redirects energy in support of change rather than against change.

5. Allows us to experiment.

6. Builds a better understanding of change and how to achieve it.

1. Takes longer, particularly at the planning stage.

2. Therefore, requires more time and effort in the early stages.

In addition, involving people may lead to greater uncertainty and instability as individuals or groups use the involvement process as a means of opposing change. However, if the objective is the effective implementation of change, this latter is less of an issue. These same people are likely to oppose the change, whether or not they were involved. If they are not involved the opposition will come out in different ways.

Involving people may depend on the following:

1. The complexity of the changes and the strength of linkage between different parts of the changes.

2. The expected opposition and the level of dissatisfaction with the present situation.

3. The level of credibility of the people promoting change.

4. Impact of change on peoples, both positive and negative - how many "winners", how many "losers"?

5. Where the quality of the decisions is more important than their acceptability alone.

6. Where rumour is likely, whatever happens.

These factors need to be considered. Sometimes changes are probably best imposed by top management. There is no easy answer but, just as important, involvement of top management is not always the way forward. As there are real advantages in involvement, some level is always worth considering. Usually, there are many details to be resolved in which people can and should be involved. The point here is to make clear precisely how and to what extent involvement is planned. Just as important is involving key power holders and opinion leaders. They will influence the attitudes and behaviour of others and therefore, their open support is worth seeking.

Our problem, in essence, is a simple one. We never have enough time to do anything, but we always find time to do it twice. Coping with change and all its issues will take time. We often underestimate the time and energy needed to introduce change. Paying attention to the issues dealt with here will save time in the longer run. the current changes will be implemented more quickly. The organisation will become more receptive to overall change.

Reference: Carnall, Collin, A., Managing Change In Organisations, Prentice Hall,1990.