William Bridges focuses on transitions and the psychological changes that lie behind behind significant organisational change.
He maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change.
William Bridges' theory involves a three-phase process of:
(1) Ending, Losing, Letting Go - helping people deal with their tangible and intangible losses and mentally prepare to move on
(2) The Neutral Zone - critical psychological realignments and repatterning takes place. This is all about helping get people through it, and capitalising on all the confusion by encouraging them to be innovators
(3) The New Beginning - helping people develop the new identity, experience the new energy, and discover the new sense of purpose that make the change begin to work.
Bridges Transition Model
Unlike earlier models such as Lewins, which speak of institutionalising or "freezing" behaviors, Bridges' attention is focused on helping people discover, accept, and embrace their new identities in the new situation.
He theorises how these life stages can become a constant cycle of organisational renewal via the creation of a culture that embraces and nurtures change as a way of life.
As with the Beckhard change equation, this is another example of a change model that recognises the basic psychology of change at the personal level, and that is people centred.
In the best-selling "Managing Transitions" William Bridges provides a clear understanding of what change does to employees and what employees in transition can do to an organisation.
He addresses the fact that it is people who have to carry out the change.
When the book was originally published a decade ago, William Bridges was the first to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
One of the main points that William Bridges makes in his book "The Way of Transition " is that transition is different to change. Change is an external event i.e. it is what happens to you, whereas transition is an internal experience i.e. it is how you respond to what happens to you.
Personally I take the view that at root, change management is about process and people. But even process is just about people doing stuff... so ultimately it's all about people - and processes that work for people.
Any organisational initiative that creates change - or has a significant change element to it - has a 70% chance of not achieving what was originally envisaged. In my experience, of the 3 main reasons for failure, the underlying cause is nearly always to do with senior management's failure to take full account of the impact of the changes on those people who are most affected by them i.e. the absence of good strategies for managing change.
William Bridges - 3 Simple Questions to Lead People Through Change Transition
William Bridges focuses on the transitions and the psychological changes that lie behind significant organisational change. Bridges draws the important and frequently overlooked distinction between change and transition.
Bridges sees change as situational and transition as psychological.
In my experience and in my view - it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
So many times I have asked the question of directors considering some form of change initiative: "Why are you doing it and how will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
In a recent article, William Bridges said; "It still surprises me how often organizations undertake changes that no one can describe very clearly." He poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing?
So often senior executive convey a very unclear picture of the change and describe it in terms of generalities. Bridges believes that change leaders need to able to express the change in a clear simple statement that can be expressed in under one minute. This way people will obtain a core understanding of what is changing.
William Bridges offers the following guidance - the statement must:
- Clearly express the change leader's understanding and intention
- Link the change to the drivers that make it necessary
- "Sell the problem before you try to sell the solution."
- Not use jargon
- Be under 60 seconds in duration
(2) What will actually be different because of the change?
William Bridges says: "I go into organizations where a change initiative is well underway, and I ask what will be different when the change is done-and no one can answer the question."
He believes that in many cases, change initiatives are conceived at such a high level in the management structure that the planners are unaware and out of touch with the impacts the change will have - on departments, jobs and individuals: "A change may seem very important and very real to the leader, but to the people who have to make it work it seems quite abstract and vague until actual differences that it will make begin to become clear... the drive to get those differences clear should be an important priority on the planners' list of things to do."
William Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change.
He suggests that the transition starts with a loss - a letting go of the old ways of how things were before the change: "...we often say... that you don't cross the line separating change management from transition management until you have asked 'Who will lose [or has lost] what?'"
Transition management is all about seeing the situation through the eyes of the other guy. It is a perspective based on empathy. It is management and communication process that recognises and affirms people's realities and works with them to bring them through the transition. Failure to do this, on the part of change leaders, and a denial of the losses and "lettings go" that people are faced with, sows the seeds of mistrust.
In my view, William Bridges' 3 simple questions are an excellent starting place for addressing the foundational causes of the catastrophic 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
William Bridges - 3 Guidelines to Successful Change Management
Change is an emotional business. The failure to address the human impacts of change is at the root of most failed change initiatives. It is not enough just to "manage" change; people need to be led through change.
One of the major change leadership priorities is recognising and addressing the inner psychological and emotional adjustments that people move through in response to external organisational change events.
William Bridges draws the important distinction between organisational change and what he calls the "transition" that people need to move through in order to successfully adapt to the new circumstances arising from that change.
Here are 3 important guidelines that Bridges' highlights:
(1) "Transition readiness" is best indicated by an organisations legacy of change initiatives
Whenever Bridges' team undertake an assignment one of their first assessments is of what he calls "transition readiness". This is important he says as it "provides an important early indicator of what lies ahead, and one of the things we inquire into is the organisation's history of changes, both those that worked and those that didn't."
A deeper dimension to this enquiry into the change initiative legacy is to look at the scars left by successful as well as unsuccessful initiatives.
From a change leadership perspective, it is crucial to understand and address the scar tissue left by previous initiatives. The most effective way of doing this is by actions - by demonstrating that you as change leader do understand and care, and that you are taking steps to mitigate the pain.
(2) Executive detachment from everyday work impedes transition
So often it is just assumed by senior management that people can and will accept an organisational change.
But, the failure to recognise and attempt to address this dimension is a significant cause of organisational change failure. The larger the human impact of the organisational change the greater the need for some form of "transitional support".
Many directors and senior managers have the emotional detachment and objectivity to make clear, sound strategic decisions yet seem to lack the "counter-balancing" self-awareness and emotional intelligence to realise the impact of their decisions.
This omission frequently [and unnecessarily] delays or jeopardises the implementation of their strategic vision and the realisation of the organisational benefits.
Bridges: "These executives' detachment from the everyday work-work, which is so often defended as necessary to be 'strategic,' keeps these people from understanding what has to happen for changes to work as planned."
The higher you are in your organisation - the more quickly you are likely to move through your own personal transition. You know the intended destination, and have probably known for some while. Most of your people however, will not have this head start.
Your people won't "just get it"; they will take at least as long as you did to transition and quite probably a lot longer.
Bridges makes the point that it is significant that: "the great leaders, from Moses and Caesar to Lincoln and Lee, were people who deeply understood the people they were leading."
(3) Debrief thoroughly after each change initiative - find out what worked and what didn't
Bridges says that senior executives are usually in such a hurry to move on to the next change that they fail to learn from each concluding change initiative. He says that executives need to undertake a careful debrief to identify key lessons learnt.
He shares this anecdote: "I first realized that after helping a 50,000-person technology company close a fabricating plant. It went very well--they actually doubled productivity per person during the closedown process! But when they called to ask for help in shutting another facility, I discovered that they had 'forgotten' what they had done with the previous shutdown."