Emotions in change processes

We are all familiar with Kübler-Ross’s curve for classifying emotions in change processes: from shock to denial and letting go to acceptance. There is much debate about the usefulness of this curve in relation to change processes. Either way, it describes the processing of changes “in the past”. These days, one change follows another; changes run in parallel, and in most cases they no longer have a defined, irrevocable goal. Employees and managers who are confronted with many simultaneous changes experience a multitude of simultaneous emotions when processes and projects take place in parallel: joy at good customer reviews thanks to digitised processes, coupled with concern about the supposed efficiency gains from the use of AI, to name just one example.

Change in times of permanent transformation

Processing change “in the present” no longer works with a single curve, because everyone has to experience and comprehend several changes at the same time. Change in times of permanent transformation will remain the norm; there is rarely time for freeze-unfreeze-freeze change projects: before a tool is fully introduced, the integration of another company is already underway. Before that is completed, restructuring starts. And so on. Against this backdrop, the question arose recently in a discussion with a client about communications planning for a major change project: Do we even need to call it “change” anymore?

The end of change communications?

In fact, given the sheer volume of changes and change processes, it is important to think carefully about what to call it. When it says “change” on the label, many people expect unpleasant facts and lengthy processes. In the permanent transformation process we are currently experiencing, the term does not make individual changes any more appealing.

Does all this mean the end of change communications? Certainly not. As long as there are changes to communicate, change communications and management will be needed, including:

• Compelling storylines that convince people of the need for change.
• CEOs and managing directors who act as sponsors for the change.
• Surprising formats that stand out from the usual internal communications.

Then, in the end, it will no longer be relevant to those involved whether or not it is labelled as “change”.

Natascha Kunath, Managing Director

H/Advisors Deekeling Arndt

[email protected]