Why The People Side of Change Is so Difficult and What to Do About It

Your firm is growing and it’s time to change processes. Perhaps you are adopting a new case management system or merged with another firm. The list goes on. What these changes have in common is that they are large-scale, intentional, and initiated because they are believed to be beneficial. Let’s call the change “Problem A.”

The challenge with change is not the change itself – the Problem A. It’s “Problem B”—the people side of change.

Problem B is the friction that can result in team members becoming annoyed (or worse) by differences in their approach to effectuating and adjusting to change. When team members experience friction because their approaches differ, they spend too much time trying to navigate and mitigate Problem B, which distracts from solving Problem A. The inevitable frustration over “nothing happening” adds to the stress of the change, increasing the finger-pointing and friction–Problem B. Remember, it is Problem A that is important.

It was the late Dr. Michael J. Kirton who explored differences in approach and made the distinction between Problem A and Problem B as part of his Adaption-Innovation Theory (A-I Theory). A-I Theory provides a framework for understanding different problem-solving styles (also known as “creativity” or “cognitive” style). “Adaption” is an approach that accepts the existing construct or way of doing things and uses it to develop a solution. “Innovation” describes an approach that may seek to alter the construct or way of doing things to develop a solution.

A person’s preferred problem-solving style—adaption, innovation or more likely somewhere closer to the middle of a 120-point scale—is fixed. While neither style is preferable, each person’s style is best suited to solving certain types of problems in their preferred manner.

A person’s behavior, however, is not fixed. As part of daily life, we all solve problems utilizing non-preferred styles. Kirton called this “coping.” An example of coping includes an adaptor (who, by definition, prefers working within a known and defined framework) creating a process absent any guidelines. Another example is an innovator (who prefers just the opposite) undertaking tasks that require adhering to strict processes. Note that the adaptor and innovator swapping tasks would optimize each person’s preferred style and fulfillment.

It makes sense that people with different cognitive styles experience change differently. People with more adaptive problem-solving styles can struggle with lack of a detailed plan or process. They often fear that the change will occur too quickly, recklessly resulting in catastrophic mistakes. People with more innovative problem-solving styles can be frustrated with the slow pace of change caused by unnecessary handwringing, which can result in missed opportunities. You just need to “rip the band-aid off” and solve the next set of problems if and when they occur, they say. Add that change can evoke any number of emotions—excitement, fear, anxiety—sometimes all at once and it’s a wonder that big changes are ever successful. 

How to Minimize Problem B to Maximize Focus on Problem A

As I explored in my January 2024 column, “Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills with Style,” when armed with an understanding of cognitive style, people can augment their capacity to examine their own thinking, assumptions, and approaches by recognizing that different approaches to solving problems exist, pausing to seek them out and then applying them to the problem at hand. Since change necessitates solving problems, people who first examine their own approach with objectivity and can consider other approaches as possibly more effective, are more likely to successfully navigate both Problem A and Problem B as they appreciate colleagues’ different approaches.

Critically, this initial step of examining one’s own thinking style leads to greater curiosity and understanding of colleagues’ approaches, and then recognizing that your colleagues both see the challenge differently and provide insight that you don’t. Once you recognize your colleagues’ contributions as valuable, you reduce the energy necessary to navigate cognitive style differences—Problem B—and can focus on Problem A.

These six strategies will help you to further minimize the distraction caused by the people side of change.

1. Know yourself. It starts with you and your relationship to the change—the Problem A. Are you more adaptive or more innovative or somewhere in the middle? What does change look like when it’s working well? What annoys you when it isn’t? Knowing yourself will help to better navigate both Problem A and Problem B by elevating objective thinking over fear and personalization.
2. Anticipate colleagues’ challenges. Using yourself as a baseline, consider whether your colleague is similar, more adaptive or more innovative in approach to change. Recognize that the bigger the difference in style, the more likely their approach, stresses and feelings about the change will differ.
3. Discuss and adjust. Now that you have a theory to inform your approach to your colleague, discuss the aspect of the change that isn’t going smoothly vis-à-vis you and your colleague. Listen with curiosity. Adjust your approach and request that colleagues adjust as well.
4. Don’t take your colleague’s stress personally. Regardless of how unprofessional or targeted at you a colleague’s complaint seems, remember that the responding in kind only aggravates Problem B.
5. Shift the conversation. If your colleague vents fears or frustrations, shift the colleague’s thinking by asking, “What would you like to see happen here?” or “What is one action I/you/the firm could take to improve the situation for you?” The point is to move the conversation from frustration to identifying action steps.
6. Recognize different planning styles. Recognize that an absence of planning and details cause stress for the “more adaptive” and that “overplanning” and the lack of progress causes stress for the “more innovative.” Discuss and negotiate these differences, identifying next steps and which challenges will be left for emergent planning.

Utilizing these six strategies, you will not only harness colleagues’ best thinking, but you’ll improve relationships and colleagues’ feelings of being valued.