Shared Pain is Taboo
Shared Pain is Half the Pain Taboo
How to Manage Loss during Times of Change
Elisabeth Heid & Judit Teichert
Published in Zeitschrift für Organisationsentwicklung, 3/2021, 60-65, translated from German
Why do so many change processes lose their momentum?
Often, it’s because change comes with sacrifice. People will have to incur losses to make the change. Losing something you care for, believe in, or identify with is painful. Worse, those losses are often taboo — unacknowledged elephants in the room.
In order to successfully manage change efforts, you need to openly name these losses, create space to discuss them, and serve as a role model by facing your losses.
Practicing leadership requires you to choreograph opportunities for the people to mourn the losses when they arise in times of change.
Why do so many change projects still fail?
Adaptive processes in organizations often begin with euphoria, big visions, ambitious milestones, extensive timelines, and resources. Despite all this energy and fanfare, they are still highly likely to fail.
We’ve worked with hundreds of clients over the years, supporting them through change processes. Again and again, we see that it is only the visible aspects of change that get addressed: the vision and the structures, capabilities, processes, and incentive systems to implement that vision.
What remains taboo is the invisible: namely, the reality that change always comes with real or feared losses for the people involved. By revealing losses and being role models for mourning and coping with them, managers can make a significant contribution to successful change.
Most frameworks for change management only focus on “visible” levers
The fathers and grandfather of change management frameworks regarded change as a process that the management team implements top-down and gradually. Kurt Lewin (1947) recommended that the status quo be thawed in order to then move the affected persons towards the desired target state and then consolidate it. John Kotter (1995) developed this into an eight-stage change model. The decisive factor is, for example, to create urgency, to communicate an inspiring vision, and to form a single-river coalition of supporters.
In the late 90s and the early 2000s, theorists dealt with the fact that it is not so easy to win over people for change. Peter Senge (1999) admits: "You must be willing to be influenced by another person” and raises the question of the best role of the manager in the change process. Perhaps the common understanding of the "CEO-as-hero" prevents change because it infantilizes the organization. Leadership – in the sense of assuming responsibility for change – must and can come from different hierarchical levels (Senge, 1999, Heifetz, 1994). Otto Scharmer (2007) extended this trend by shedding light on the inner process required for people to change (“organizational learning”).
“People don’t resist change – they resist loss.”
The losses behind change are often overlooked or avoided
Despite the positive developments in prevailing change management theories, a crucial aspect is ignored: how best to reckon with the losses that accompany change?
Despite the common understanding, it is not change that people are afraid of. People actually embrace change. If it is in their favor. Would you throw away a winning lottery ticket? Or reject an exciting new job? Or a better apartment in a great neighborhood?
It is not the change itself that causes resistance. Rather, it is the real or perceived losses associated with the change that are so difficult. The new job means saying farewell to beloved colleagues; the new apartment means leaving a familiar environment. Change processes often fail not because the change itself was not properly structured, initiated, or supported with incentives (as the change management theories would claim) – but because losses were not sufficiently anticipated and managed.
In cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, losses have been considered for some time. Kahnemann and Tversky (1984) speak of loss aversion: As soon as uncertainties are involved, people decide irrationally, and weight feared losses greater than hoped-for gains. As a result, people make unjustified efforts to counteract these losses. Fear of loss has a stronger effect than a desire for change! In addition, there is a negativity bias. We overemphasize possible negative consequences and prefer the status quo instead. In other words, we are overly pessimistic and give the beautiful, new world little or no chance (Sunstein & Thaler, 2008).
The core task: identify and understand loss
Similar to how drug companies inform patients about the undesirable side effects, managers should proactively inform the affected people about losses that may accompany the change.
In some instances, we experience tough managers “writing off” a loss – for example, when cutting costs or getting rid of employees. It’s common to hear a cynical remark when managers engage loss in this manner (e.g., “If you want to drain the swamp, don't ask the frogs”). What is missing here is integrity. It is necessary to truly examine and empathize which losses are most threatening. This is not so easy, because they are under the waterline of the metaphorical iceberg.
Loss can be real or anticipated, material or intangible (see Figure 1). What these types of loss have in common is that people often view them as embarrassing, self-centered, or self-serving concerns. The loss is often accompanied by unpleasant emotions such as sadness, disappointment, fear, or – when the loss feels socially unacceptable – shame (e.g., “What do others think about me when they know that it is important to me to have control?”). Therefore, many people avoid showing their fears openly.
Once the various losses have been identified, an important step towards sustainable change has already been taken.
Figure 1
Identify and understand loss
Figure 2
Practical example: Diagnosing loss during an entrepreneurial culture change
An organization hopes for managers to take on more responsibilities, more cross-functional collaboration as well as more cooperation within the middle management, and initiates a cultural change process. The euphoria quickly turns into fatigue after a couple of weeks. Implicitly, fears of losses of the people involved become evident.
Grief is a core coping strategy for loss
We have to express our feelings in order to be able to look ahead. Unfortunately, Western societies have lost the competence to accompany people in mourning, particularly in organizational contexts that bias towards logic and compliance and shy away from ‘unprofessional’ or ‘inappropriate’ displays of emotion.
Until the 1970s, it was common in Germany (where our authors are from) for people to keep mourning periods and wear black mourning clothes. The public symbol encouraged sympathy not only from the grieving person, but also from those who encountered them. Today, mourning is done in private – alone or with therapeutic guidance. Public mourning is highly de-personalized and without emotional expression: flags are set at half-mast, sport teams hold a moment of silence.
In an organizational context, grieving is almost completely absent. Instead, the slogan is issued: We must now look ahead. This is often exacerbated by cynicism or a deprecation of all those who show “weakness” or “aren’t positive or motivated enough.”
Leadership frameworks can learn from therapy, religious, and cultural traditions in coping with grief
An essential leadership task during times of change is to hold people through grief. And yet, this is barely taught at business school. Let’s take a look beyond the (management) horizon: What do disciplines that have more experience in coping with grief teach us?
Therapeutic approaches
Grief has the function of helping people cope with experiences of loss. Therapists support the overcoming of losses. They name the loss itself and help their clients to experience and express accompanying emotions, sensations, and thoughts. Furthermore, they acknowledge those unpleasant feelings and help the clients both comprehend them and experience them as legitimate. This makes the loss (and one's own reaction to it) acceptable in the long haul (Kübler-Ross & Kessler, 2007). After all, therapeutic grief work is about building a new – supportive rather than restrictive – relationship with the lost (such as a deceased person). Therapists often also support those affected in the development and assumption of new roles, behaviors, and life plans.
Approaches from cultural and religious wisdom traditions
There are big differences between cultures in the way mourning is done, especially in the emotional expression of grief. In ancient Egypt, paid “lamenters” accompanied the funeral procession and drew attention to the death of a person through loud wailing, singing and dancing, and prayers. Public crying and wailing are still part of mourning in many parts of the Islamic world. The Navajo, who mourn in peace to make it easier for the spirit of the deceased to travel to the next world, handle it quite differently. Cultures are united by the fact that there are specific norms for mourning and remembering that provide orientation (Schumacher, 2016). Common to these rituals and norms are that:
A common sympathy for the loss: the person directly affected is invited to grief and joined and supported by the people around them.
The loss is organized in a framework, or meaning. For example, by presenting the loss as a sacrifice or renunciation in favor of a greater good (e.g., God, motherland, the well-being of the community or future generations).
People are freed from many social norms during the mourning period (e.g. everyday tasks, withholding emotions) and are thus granted that this is a special and intense time.
Mourning takes place immediately after loss, suggesting that grief must be dealt with when it arises – and that grieving can be “made up” later, but this is much more laborious.
Mourning is limited in time in order to be able to look to the future and renewal.
Five steps for accompanying losses in change processes
How can you manage the loss that arises in adaptive work? We offer five recommendations, which we address to managers, but which also apply to consultants in change processes.
1. Surface and name loss
Sometimes it is not so easy to hear what losses are feared. It helps to listen “between the lines,” to enter into conversations with curiosity and compassion, and to assume that behind every demand, every complaint, every accusation there is a legitimate need. Deepen your understanding and help loss surface by asking the following questions:
What unpleasant emotions does the change provoke for you?
What needs to be said out loud (again) so that you can work well together in the new situation or arrangement?
What do you need to let go in order to accept and adapt to the new situation?
What do we have to do (cling to) in order to sabotage our adaptation?
It is important to break the taboo and to explicitly address fears in advance. This can be done in the context of strategy or vision development by raising the question: “What might I possibly have to give up for this?” It is important to actually ask the affected people about fears of loss and not – as is often done – to assume them. Assuming people’s losses entails the risk that grief will be blamed for their behavior, when there is in fact a well-founded criticism or a legitimate interest.
In our experience, the Immunity to Change method (Kegan & Lahey, 2009) is an effective way to identify fears and the assumptions on which these fears are based. In just two steps, individuals or teams work their way up to their (subconscious) worries about a change project – without losing face over disclosing them. In this way, taboo emotions (as well as legitimate interests worthy of protection) surface and thus can be engaged.
At this stage it is important to name and acknowledge these losses instead of ignoring or marginalizing them. We work with executives to practice saying the following: “Yes, that’s hard, and your reaction (e.g. anger, sadness, fear) is understandable” – and to remain still in the resulting silence. Through this they show their appreciation for the loss and promote a moment of mourning – through which it is then possible for the team to detach themselves from the loss.
2. Be a role model: Make your own sacrifices and reveal your own learning
Managers have an important role to play in the change process. True to the maxim that change begins with the "Man in the Mirror", they can be role models for change and reveal their own learning. This means, for example:
Make your own sacrifices: give up power or renounce your own privileges and possibly even recognize when it is beneficial for the change for you to leave
Share publicly what is difficult to change
Acquire new skills that are important in the changed reality of the company, while revealing your own learning process
Admit and apologize for your own mistakes in the design and implementation of the change process
Here is what some executives shared with us during difficult adaptive processes:
“It’s hard for me to give up more responsibility and control less. I’m worried that I might be thought irresponsible and that I’m not living up to my role.”
“Maybe with my departure it will also come out that I have not managed many things well enough – that is depressing.”
“I focused on working with international partners. This was at the expense of the internal management, because my attention was not with you. I overlooked that for a long time and I’m sorry for that.”
3. Give loss a meaningful interpretation
Being asked to give something up, voluntarily and “just like that” (or even more so, “because the bosses say so”), generates defiance and resistance. For many of us, when we have to accept losses, it is extremely helpful to see meaning in it. Managers can support grief work by:
Asking employees why it might be good to take the loss
Naming the loss and the associated efforts and appreciating them as a “high price” or as a “great sacrifice”
Explaining for which organizational good the price or sacrifice is needed
Inviting the people concerned (not requesting) to pay this price and to make the sacrifice
4. Accept (unwanted) side effects or casualties
Sometimes not everyone can be taken along. For some, the losses are so great that it no longer fits. In order for people to be able to save face, it is important to give them the opportunity to make this decision themselves. Elisabeth Heid (co-author) has accompanied schools in difficult situations in processes of change. For the heads of these schools, there eventually came a point when they needed to say to their staff: "For some of you, this may no longer be the right school. We do not have to be exactly in line with everything, but you should share the main features of the realignment for the benefit of the organization as well as for your own satisfaction." It often took great courage for the school management to express this – but their staff was thankful for the clarity.
5. Celebrate farewell
A real farewell is the necessary downside of reorientation. Therefore, we recommend giving room to say goodbye. Managers can use farewell rituals to steer the recognition and overcoming of loss in a tangible and structured way. One of our colleagues reports on a company he co-founded: "We celebrated and mourned the departure of Phase 1.0 when three founders left us and the company became much more professional – but also a bit more bureaucratic. We made a photo book, laughed and cried over old stories and departure from 'Phase 1.0' together."
In some cases, it might even be relevant to think about compensation for loss. Here we’d suggest you ask employees what they need to overcome the loss and to negotiate appropriate compensation. Compensation does not have to be monetary and often money is not the appropriate means to meet the need behind the loss. The decision is to make the effort to find out together with the employees what it is about, what exactly the wound looks like – and then to find a suitable remedy (or consolation).
The High Art: managing fear and loss for employees, executives, and consultants
Typically, as consultants, we also encounter resistance in the implementation of the above points – just as with any change. In the first place are objections of this kind: "But we do not want to wake up sleeping dogs" or "The word 'renunciation' unnecessarily stirs up the already existing worries". For managers, it is unusual to “only” name the difficulty without directly presenting a solution for it. “Don't bring me any problems, only solutions” is a well-known management maxim. Because naming losses also threatens a loss for executives: How much do I lose reputation among my employees if I just let my naming of the loss stand and do nothing actively to make the mood better?
Interestingly, the same loss dynamic hinders progress here twice: employees are inhibited by change because they find it difficult to overcome a loss; and managers are also inhibited from publicly appreciating the loss of employees because they themselves fear a loss (e.g., of their reputation). As consultants in change processes, we are therefore asked to do three things: to manage the fear of loss of the management staff, while at the same time enabling these managers to do this with their employees, and last but not least, managing our own fears of loss (i.e., "how does this go to the client?"). We have the choice of cultivating these worries as taboos – or putting them on the table with a little serenity and humor.
Bibliography
Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without Easy Answers. Harvard University Press.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. In: Econometrica. 47, 263—292
Kegan, R. & Lahey L. L. (2009). Immunity to Change. Harvard University Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Kübler-Ross E. & Kessler, D. (2007). On Grief and Dying: Finding the Meaning of Grief Through the Five Stages of Loss. Scribner.
Lewin, K. (1947).Frontiers in Group Dynamics, In: Human Relations 1 Nr.5.
Scharmer, O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Schumacher, K. (2016). Wo Trauernde lächeln. Spektrum. https://zoe.ch/trauernde
Senge,P. (1999). The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. Doubleday/Currency.
Thaler, R. & Sunstein, C.(2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.