Transition approaches often neglect the fact that the old model needs to die to allow the birth of the new one. Each transition has losers who may become strong barriers to the new model. Is there such a thing as a lean transition?
As compared to our ancestors, we are incredibly accustomed to rapid change. Our politicians and decision makers change every 4-5 years, the performance of IT tools follows an exponential growth (according to Moore’s Law), population growth is higher than ever but at the same time we need to anticipate a rapid ageing of the population. This pace of change is unprecedented in human history. In fact, we have become addicted to change. It would seem to us very boring probably to live a stable life, to work for the same company for our entire professional life or to live in the same town for several decades. Not only is the change very fast, but the pace of change is itself increasing regularly.
All these rapid changes result in an exponential increase in the pressures we exert on nature and its resources as well as on ourselves and our own resources. We know that this increase is not sustainable. At some point, (and preferably soon) we need to change the “software” we are using in a radical way. This requires more than just simple “changes” but important transitions, i.e. complex mix of changes that take a system from a stable state (also in a stable state many small changes can occur) to a new one.
Contrary to changes that affect us in a progressive way, transitions hit us because they destabilize the systems in place. The typical transition mechanism has been described and analysed by William Bridges in his book “Managing Transitions: Making the most of change”. According to him, a transition follows in general a three-stage pattern (see figure) i.e. a time process through which:
- The old system progressively vanishes
- During a transition zone the old and the new system coexist but evolve in opposite directions
- The new system is adopted
There are typical examples of such transitions such as:
– the energy transition: the move from fossil based primary energy sources to renewables
– the demographic transition: the period (typically of at least 50 years) that starts with an increase in longevity and finishes with a low fertility rate; in this case the two boundary curves correspond to the respective decreases in mortality and fertility
– the food transition: the move from a traditional cereal and fibre-based diet to a more “western” diet rich in sugars and animal protein
Many such transitions do not attract much attention, they are simply part of the life of companies, of institutions or of societies.
Therefore managing transition is not managing change. It requires thinking and anticipating the three phases as three parts of an interconnected process. Because without a proper ending process of the old system, the new one will not develop in good conditions or may even not develop at all. The first stage needs to understand the barriers, the second and third ones need to use levers.
This relates also to the fact that transitions have in general both winners and losers. And it is important to anticipate the reactions of those who will be affected by the disappearance of the old model and to understand what the consequences for them will be. Therefore the two change curves are interdependent: the old model needs to phase out -and eventually disappear- to allow the development of the new model.
Stage 1: let the old model go
This stage is generally neglected, especially by those who steer and drive the transition. Leaders are in general committed to the new model and are much less concerned by the loss of the old model. For most of the others, as stated by William Bridges: “get[ting] ready for endings and losses is the largest difficulty for people in transition”. This parallels research work by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman who reported in 1991 that our choices are more influenced by consideration of what we might lose than by what we might gain.
Knowing this behaviour, the transition leaders need to be proactive in identifying where resistance will occur, the rationale for that resistance and the propensity of certain actors to oppose change. They need to accept and acknowledge that people need time to abandon the old model. William Bridge lists the types of reactions that are expected; they range from anger, anxiety, bargaining, sadness, disorientation to depression. To go through these emotions, time is of essence. But leaders can also try to accelerate the acceptance by treating these behaviours with respect, by smoothening the transition or by compensating for certain losses.
Stage 2: the transition zone (or “neutral zone” as named by William Bridge)
The transition zone is a critical period in which the old model still survives whilst the new one is not yet fully implemented. During this stage, changes happen fast and in an uncertain environment since the rules of the new game are not yet clearly settled. Therefore this period offers a lot of opportunities if well managed. It is a period where the creativity can be mobilised and where people can innovate. Using the creativity of people during that period is the best way to associate them with the construction of the new model and create co-ownership.
Stage 3: adopt the new model
Adopting the new model may seem rather easy. It seems to be the “positive” part of the transition i.e. the one engaging actors into what is generally perceived as a “better” situation. This is however not an obligation for all transitions.
In the life of organisations, there are different phases (see for instance William Bridges and the figure below). An organisation is typically an abstract construction by a group of people requiring a common belief or dream to be progressively transformed into a structure. After its inception, the organisation follows typically a growth phase during which its structure and the way it functions are clarified. After this the organisation stabilizes and is progressively transformed into an institution: it enters a mature phase. Because of the constant changes in its external environment, a stable organisation always requires adjustments (the so-called Red Queen’s race: you need to run to at least remain at the same place) and a stable phase always ends. The organisation then needs to reinvent itself or it is likely to die.
All these steps in this organisational cycle involve transitions. But these transitions are not all of the same type.
During the growth phase, transitions are rather easy to manage because of the growth context. At the end, there is collective gain for many stakeholders in the organisation. Or at least, the losers are fewer than the winners. This explains why, after two centuries of nearly continuous growth, we have progressively become addicted to growth and it is for us difficult to accept that the growth rate could be reduced or nullified. The growth paradigm contains the promise that everyone will get more in the end without having to take from anyone.
During the mature phase, the situation changes and each transition becomes trickier. The number of losers in any transition is comparable to the number of winners. In addition the organisation has become an institution in the meantime, ending up being more rigid and having a lot to lose.
The reinventing -or dying- phases are obviously the most difficult ones. There is a high probability that the number of losers is higher than the number of winners during this phase. And clearly, the survival of the organisation is at stake so that decisions taken during these phases have an emotional dimension. This is probably why most established organisations will not enter these phases unless forced by external forces. And why the transitions that need to take place to better manage our finite resources are so difficult.
What does this tell us if we want to scale up the “good”?
First of all, that scaling phenomena generally induce transitions that need to be anticipated. In particular, understanding who will be the winners and who will be the losers of these transitions is critical. Engaging with the potential losers early on in order to ease the letting go phase is essential. It is important to understand precisely where the pain is coming from in order to select the best remedy and help these losers become the co-owners of the transition.
Secondly we need to revisit our implicit assumption that growth will go on in all domains. We know that several resources of our planet are becoming or will become increasingly limited. Transitions that do not occur in a context of growth are more difficult than the others because the number of losers may exceed the number of winners in the short term. In the long term the assumption if the scaling is indeed for “good” is of course that the number of winners (entire humanity) is all encompassing. As there is unfortunately an increased tendency to look at short rather than long term, co-ownership and communication of the process and solutions are key. It is better for us to learn how to manage such transitions before they are imposed on us.
Associated resource
Managing Transitions, making the most of Change
By William Bridges
This book helps understand that during a transition process people have to deal with two separate processes, an ending and a new beginning and that the ending process is too often neglected.
