Talking Stick - November/December 2016 - 29

the change but must also be prepared
to handle the reactions of individuals
within the organization. Change can
be hard for those not in control, and
the best laid plans may fail if the
impact on employees at all levels is not
considered. In fact, research shows that
change fails 70 percent of the time if
not implemented correctly. Bronwen
Bares Pelaez, director of the Women's
Center at Florida International
University in Miami, shares a story of
success in implementing a strategic
plan that needed to work not just within
a department but across a division. As
she explains, the plan was "created by
a team of managers and colleagues
from across the division who were also
responsible for implementation" and
then discussed at monthly meetings
with directors. This collaboration
allowed them to "identify how the
division plan fits within the plan for the
university and to have a bigger picture
for the division." While some like
Pelaez have a leading role in creating
a new vision, others act as single
stakeholders in decision-making and
must be made to feel that their voice
is being heard and valued. As Colleen
Riggle, assistant dean of students and
director of the Women's Resource
Center at Georgia Tech in Atlanta,
notes, "Our division recently changed
its name. The staff, students, and
campus had a say in the name change;
it was a vote. While I didn't vote for the
change, I appreciated that they asked
others for their opinions."
Author and organizational
consultant William Bridges created a
transition model that provides a useful
framework in understanding how
people internalize the new reality that
follows change. He makes an important
distinction between change, which
is external, and transition, which is
internal; while change is the process
the organization undergoes when
they start, stop, or modify something,
transition is the psychological process
that people undergo in order to adjust

 RESOURCES
William Bridges, "Managing
Organizational Transitions,"
Organizational Dynamics
(Summer 1986).
William Bridges and Susan
Mitchell, "Leading Transition: A
New Model for Change," Leader
to Leader (Spring 2000).
John Kotter, "Leading Change:
Why Transformation Efforts Fail,"
Harvard Business Review (MarchApril 1995).
John Kotter and Leonard
Schlesinger, "Choosing Strategies
for Change," Harvard Business
Review (July-August, 2008).

to the change. In an article written with
his colleague Susan Mitchell, he notes
that even when organizational leaders
have the best plans in place, they will
most likely fail in fully implementing
the change if they don't account for
the transition that people encounter
during the process. Bridges' transition
model identifies three stages that
people undergo when dealing with
change: ending (the process of letting
go, which may be accompanied by
shock, denial, or anger); the neutral
zone (the uncertainty involved in being
in between the old and the new, which
can result in apathy, frustration, or
confusion); and a new beginning (the
process of moving forward, which
can involve more positive feelings of
engagement and excitement).
The first step, ending or letting
go, involves acknowledging that the
old way of doing something has come
to an end, and this realization can be
difficult. People are not being asked
simply to let go of a policy or procedure;
they are being asked to let go of a
previous way of thinking, knowing,
and doing. Managers can do at least
two things to help individuals move

through this phase. First, they can
assess readiness for change within the
organization in order to understand
what type of resistance, if any, there
may be. Sometimes a change needs
to be made immediately and will
involve a rapid transformation in the
organization, while others can be
introduced slowly and systematically.
Second, once managers have assessed
the readiness for change, they can
turn their attention to selling the
idea. Gaining buy-in on the part of
staff can help them understand the
problem, the necessity for change, and
the value of the solution. Failing to
communicate the impetus for change
and to involve staff throughout the
process can lead to uncertainty and
even resistance. LP Ailes, assistant
director for career services at Indiana
University in Bloomington, shares his
experience responding to change in a
rapidly growing department. "At times
throughout the change process I was
uncertain about what the end goal was.
We talked as a group about how things
were changing and should be flexible
but were not informed about goals until
everything was set in place." When
employees are not part of the decisionmaking loop, they can feel blindsided
when information is not shared. As
Riggle notes, "I was told an hour before
the announcement of the new structure
that I would have a new supervisor."
Once it is understood that change
is occurring, staff need to get through
what Bridges calls a neutral zone,
a state of limbo between the old
and the new. During this time, they
can experience uncertainty, feeling
confused, angry, or apathetic as they
process what the outcome of the change
may be and how it might disrupt their
customary work life. Leaders tend
to leave people behind as they are
mapping out the terrain, even though
this is the period when the change is
actually unfolding. Pelaez shares her
experience with staff discomfort at
this stage: "The size of the strategic

NOVEMBER + DECEMBER 2016

29
Talking Stick - November/December 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - November/December 2016
