In Managing Transitions, organizational change consultants William and Susan Bridges offer a step-by-step guide to support organizational leaders in effectively managing change. They argue that the external changes we experience are not nearly as challenging as our internal, emotional process of coming to terms with those changes, and therefore it’s critical that organizational leaders support their teams through the internal transition process.
William and Susan Bridges collaboratively run William Bridges Associates, a consulting firm dedicated to helping organizational leaders better manage the “human-side of change.” Both well-renowned experts in the field of change management, the couple has published multiple books on the topic. Leaders and management consultants still use the Bridges Transition Model, developed by William Bridges in 1979, as a tool for navigating the challenges of organizational change.
In this guide, we’ve organized the authors’ ideas into three parts:
Throughout the guide, we’ll show how the Bridges Transition Model compares to other popular theories of organizational development and change management. We’ll also expand on some of the ideas that William and Susan Bridges built on in the development of their change management philosophy.
The Growing Trend of Human-Centered Leadership
William and Susan Bridges’ theory of transition management falls under the umbrella of human-centered leadership.
Human-centered leadership is a model of leadership that “puts people first.” The job of a human-centered leader is to consider the experience of their team members and to foster an environment in which employees feel valued, respected, and engaged.
An increasing number of advocates of human-centered leadership argue that considering employee well-being does not have to come at the expense of profit. In fact, a 2014 Gallup study found that high levels of employee engagement led to profit increases of 22% and productivity gains of 21%, in addition to lower employee turnover and higher customer service ratings. In short, the choice between profit and people is a false dichotomy.
Skeptics of the model, like entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, author of the book Woke, Inc., suggest that human-centered leadership practices have grown out of the increasing influence of progressive politics on business and offer little more than virtue-signaling. Within a conventional corporate model, a leader makes decisions based on the financial benefit to the business and shareholders. Human-centered leadership practices, on the other hand, also consider the good of the company employees and larger community.
William and Susan Bridges explain that to effectively manage transitions, you must first understand the difference between a change and a transition. In this section, we’ll start by defining these key terms.
The authors make an important distinction between change and transition:
(Shortform note: While psychologists have long distinguished between external changes and how humans internally process those changes, the language of “change” and “transition” became more common after the introduction of the Bridges Transition Model. When defining the difference between change and transition, psychologists often cite the work of William and Susan Bridges. Psychologists have applied the Bridges Transition model in numerous contexts beyond the realm of business, from discussions of grief and loss to the challenges of leaving abusive relationships.)
Everyone confronts change on a daily basis. Change is inevitable and happening all the time: seasons change, relationships end, people move, companies are bought and sold. In Managing Transitions, the authors argue that external change is neutral, but our internal reaction to it (the transition) can be challenging. (Shortform note: Change is challenging because humans have evolved to prefer certainty. Our survival has depended on our ability to control our environment, so when we experience change, our brains tend to respond to it as a potential threat to our survival, causing a fear reaction.)
Therefore, organizational leaders should focus their energy on managing transitions. The authors caution that if an organization attempts to implement changes without supporting the people impacted (such as employees, clients, and partners) through the psychological process of transition, the goals of the change are bound to fail.
Defining Success and Failure in Change Initiatives
A common refrain in the literature of change management is that 70% of all change initiatives fail. While this statistic is repeated over and over, there’s no clear evidence or research to back the claim. In 2011, an extensive literature review found that there was no reliable evidence or research to support this statistic, yet it continues to be quoted as a widely-accepted fact.
One of the challenges with this commonly cited statistic is that it lumps change initiatives into two categories—success and failure. In a 2008 survey, global executives were asked to categorize their organizational transformations as 1) extremely successful, 2) very successful, 3) somewhat successful, or 4) not successful at all.
Interestingly, while only 4.88% of executives identified the transformation as “extremely successful,” 48.96% said their transformation was somewhat successful, and only 5.87% said the transformation was not successful at all—or a failure.
While organizational leaders and change consultants agree with William and Susan Bridges that organizational transformation is challenging and rarely goes according to plan, it would be inaccurate to describe all change initiatives that are not 100% successful as failures. More often, success falls somewhere along a spectrum of success.
In the previous section, we defined the difference between change and transition. Next, we’ll briefly discuss why it’s critical for organizational leaders to learn how to manage transition effectively.
Simply put, organizational leaders must learn to manage transition because every organization experiences transition. All organizations will naturally change over the course of their lifetime as they grow from an idea to a start-up to an established company. A well-managed transition is critical if an organization is to move successfully from one stage of its evolution to the next.
(Shortform note: William and Susan Bridges emphasize the importance of managing people through the stages of organizational growth. Implicit in their argument is the importance of broader cultural change during these periods of transition: Get enough people (or the right people) on board, and it triggers the necessary cultural change for the organization to evolve. But just like internal psychological transitions, cultural change can’t be mandated. People may grudgingly accept a mandated change, but they will lack the optimism, creativity, and excitement that are necessary to ensure the change is successful and long-lasting.)
According to the authors, all organizations evolve through a predetermined set of stages. As organizations evolve, each transition will require a closing out of the previous phase, a bridge to the next, and an emerging into the subsequent phase.
William and Susan Bridges outline seven stages of an organization’s life cycle:
OR
An organization’s life cycle doesn’t have to end in failure. A company has the potential to experience a rebirth (or revitalization) depending on how leaders handle the transitions involved.
The History of the Organizational Life Cycle Model
The organizational life cycle model grew out of the study of life cycles in the natural world. The first example of nature as a metaphor for organizational development can be traced all the way back to 1890 when Alfred Marshall compared the growth of companies to that of “trees of the forest.” However, many attribute the organizational life cycle (OLC) model we use today to Mason Haire’s work in Modern Organizational Theory, published in 1959. Since then, the concept of organizational life cycle has gone through many iterations.
While the concept of organizational life cycle is still broadly used by organizational consultants and leaders to predict potential opportunities and challenges based on the company’s development stage, some researchers question the continued relevance of the model.
A 2021 article published in the Journal of Organizational Design suggests that the current model is too simplistic and over-determines the importance of growth as a factor of success. The authors argue instead that companies evolve differently, regardless of size, and that an “evolutionary” model would more accurately reflect the unpredictable paths companies take in response to their environment. Unlike the more prescriptive OLC model, an evolutionary model is more flexible and focuses on an organization’s ability to adapt based on the changing environment.
According to the authors, the biggest transition an organization can go through is the process of revitalization. Organizational revitalization is the alternative to failure. It starts the organizational life cycle over again, so instead of stagnating and going out of business, the organization chooses to respond to change strategically and reimagine how it does business. If you can successfully manage the transitions involved in a revitalization process, your business can continue to thrive.
Consider the example of Lego, the Danish toy company. When Jørgen Vig Knudstorp took over as CEO in 2004, the company was facing declining sales. He recognized that the company needed a revitalization, but he also understood that that process would require strategic transition management. Vig Knudstorp focused on building relationships with employees throughout the organization before implementing any dramatic changes.
Once he gained the trust of his team, he worked with them to clarify the company’s mission and vision. Like previous CEOS, Vig Knudstorp’s willingness to reimagine how the company does business and guide his team thoughtfully through that transition has enabled Lego to continue to survive and thrive in the global marketplace.
(Shortform note: In Hit Refresh, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella offers another strong example of the power of a well-managed revitalization process to sustain an organization. In 2014, Microsoft was lagging behind its competitors. When Satya Nadella took over as CEO, he worked collaboratively with his team to reimagine the company–clarifying the company’s mission, transforming the corporate culture, and promoting innovation, resulting in huge success for the company. Through his intentional change management, Microsoft saw a market capitalization of $1.6 trillion.)
So what does strategic transition management look like?
In the previous section, we touched on the importance of managing transitions in the context of the organizational life cycle, and the impact of revitalization in the longevity of an organization. In the next section, we’ll expand on the idea of transition and introduce the three phases of transition in the Bridges Transition Model:
In order to successfully implement changes, organizational leaders must guide their teams through each phase of this transition process intentionally.
(Shortform note: For each stage of transition, the authors outline a different set of management strategies. While the suggested strategies are unique to each phase of the transition process, they all fall under three main themes: planning ahead, leading with empathy, and communicating intentionally. We’ve reorganized the strategies under these categories to highlight common themes.)
Alternative Change Management Models
The Bridges Transition Model is only one of many change management theories.
In this guide, we’ll primarily draw comparisons between the strategies outlined in Managing Transitions and those presented by Harvard professor and change management expert John Kotter in his best-selling change management book Leading Change.
In Leading Change, John Kotter outlines his 8-step theory of change management. Like the Bridges Transition Model, Kotter’s theory also emphasizes the importance of collective buy-in and leaders working closely with team members to build widespread support.
On the other hand, while many of the strategies presented by Kotter and William and Susan Bridges overlap, Kotter’s model does not explicitly differentiate between change and transition, nor does it categorize strategies based on the Closing/Bridge/Emerging timeline.
William and Susan Bridges explain that the first stage of a transition is the end of whatever came before. To successfully manage a transition, you have to first acknowledge the need for closure to help team members move on from the old way of operating. Only then will they be open to what’s coming next. (Shortform note: Our desire for closure is closely related to our desire for control in the face of uncertainty. Closure has the potential to provide a sense of control in the face of ambiguity that enables us to better process our feelings and move forward instead of perseverating about the past.)
So how can you help people navigate the loss and grief associated with this closing and help them be open to new ways of doing things? The authors recommend multiple strategies that fall under the following themes: planning ahead, leading with empathy, and communicating with intention.
Planning ahead includes thinking through who will be impacted by the planned changes and anticipating their reaction
First, recognize potential resistance by identifying impacted team members and what they stand to lose. Leaders will face the most resistance from employees who have something to lose in the change. So consider who will be impacted by the change and how they will be impacted—what will they lose? For example, if a team is going to be restructured, will team members lose the opportunity to interact on a daily basis with beloved colleagues? How might this affect their willingness to build relationships within their new team? These kinds of negative impacts can breed resistance.
Responding to Resistance
In Leading Change, John Kotter specifically discusses the resistance leaders often face from junior and middle managers. He notes that people in these roles have often been with the organization for a long time and are more attached to the existing way of doing things. They feel as if they have more to lose. Kotter takes a harder line than William and Susan Bridges. He recommends communicate clearly what is expected of managers in the change process, and, if they are unable to get on board, remove them from their position.
William and Susan Bridges take a more empathetic approach, encouraging leaders to listen and understand team members’ concerns. However, Managing Transitions doesn’t explicitly address how to respond if team members refuse to accept the impending changes.
Throughout this process, anticipate strong emotions from your team. Remember, even a seemingly small bureaucratic or staffing change has the potential to threaten people’s sense of comfort, core values, or stability. Any loss can bring up feelings of grief, which may manifest in a range of emotions, including denial, sadness, or anger. While stakeholders may not experience each one of these emotions, anticipate seeing different manifestations of grief show up at some point in the process as people come to terms with what they’ve lost.
(Shortform note: The emotional transitions in the Bridges Transition Model roughly parallel the five stages of grief, a psychological model that outlines common emotional responses to loss. The model was introduced by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book called On Death and Dying. While the model was created to explain grief following death, the concept has been applied to explain people’s response to change more broadly. In the model, people move from shock and denial through sadness and frustration before finally accepting and integrating the changes into their new reality.)
In addition to planning ahead, the authors suggest leading with empathy. At this stage in the transition process, allow team members to experience the complicated emotions associated with loss.
For instance, remember that people’s experiences are subjective. Everyone has their own experience of changes; just because something isn’t a big deal to you doesn’t mean it isn’t a big deal to someone else. Allow space for these individual perspectives, even if you disagree.
Understanding Subjective Experience
Our inability to understand the perspective of other people is often at the root of disagreement. In Difficult Conversations, the authors explain that individuals develop narratives about their own experiences. These narratives are different depending on how we take in information and how we interpret it.
There are three reasons why people develop different narratives about shared experiences.
First, we all take in information selectively. The information we focus on and absorb may be different from the information that someone else absorbs. Second, our brains interpret that information differently based on our past experiences and value system. Finally, we draw conclusions and make judgments based on the limited information we’ve gathered and how we interpret it.
Taking the time to understand how and why someone may be resistant to the impending changes within the organization will provide the necessary foundation to have productive conversations about the issue.
Additionally, the authors recommend publicly acknowledging loss. Talking about loss openly doesn’t make it worse: It helps. Be explicit in acknowledging what people are losing and listen empathetically to what they have to say.
(Shortform note: Other leadership experts argue that leaders should not only acknowledge loss, but also take responsibility for it. Acknowledging that your change initiative is the reason behind the loss will not only improve relationships with team members but also demonstrate that you are accountable for the damage caused by your decisions.)
You can also convey empathy by taking time to honor the past as the foundation of where you stand now. Create ceremonies around what is ending and let people hold onto mementos of the past. This could be something small and physical, like a team photo, or something more symbolic like a beloved company motto or logo. These gestures help people acknowledge and say goodbye to what’s being left behind.
(Shortform note: Research has shown that rituals and ceremonies performed after loss can help reduce anxiety and alleviate feelings of grief. This is because loss of any kind often compromises our sense of certainty and security. Rituals re-establish a sense of order and purpose around that loss, restoring an individual’s sense of control.)
Finally, the authors reinforce that communicating clearly with your team will help increase trust and minimize resistance to the changes further down the road in the transition process.
Most importantly, they recommend always being as transparent as possible. Don’t withhold information unnecessarily. Communicate the changes and the timeline, and be clear about what’s changing and what isn’t. Everyone should know what they need to let go of and what they can bring forward into the future of the organization. Transparency will minimize anxiety and increase trust.
Too Much Transparency
Is there such a thing as too much transparency? Many in the business world agree that the free flow of information helps facilitate efficiency, collaboration, and innovation in the workplace.
Others, however, argue that executives should be more discerning about what they share internally. Some experts argue that the oversharing of information has the potential to contribute to “information overload” and result in the ongoing (and unproductive) questioning of management decisions. Specifically, they make the case for three areas in which transparency does not benefit employees or the company:
The Day-to-Day: Running a company involves a number of small daily decisions. The authors argue that ongoing communication about the minutiae of the day-to-day will invite feedback that’s unnecessary, unproductive, and slows down the process.
Employee Compensation: There’s been an increasing push for pay transparency in the corporate environment. However, the authors argue that pay transparency often decreases rather than increases employees’ trust in the fairness of the process.
Creative Work: Creative work often requires some amount of privacy. By giving unfiltered access to creative ideas and projects before they’ve been developed, leaders risk ideas being dismissed prematurely.
In the previous section, we discussed the importance of the first step of managing transition: helping people acknowledge and navigate the loss associated with ending. The next stage of any transition is what the authors refer to as “the neutral zone”—the time period when the organization is in between the old way of doing business and the new. We’ll refer to this stage as the bridge moving forward.
The bridge stage can be short, but depending on the scope of the change, can last for years.
This stage is especially challenging because everything is changing and uncertain and not everyone is on the same page. However, the bridge stage is also full of opportunity. When so much is up in the air, people are more likely to ask questions, experiment, and challenge established workplace patterns and systems. For this reason, the bridge stage is the most creative stage of the transition process.
(Shortform note: In Uncertainty, Mark Runco suggests that creativity isn’t just possible during a period of uncertainty—it depends on uncertainty. When our lives are stable, there’s very little impetus for change or innovation. However, when that stability is threatened, we experience doubt which in turn causes us to contemplate a broader range of possible outcomes that will require us to act in unfamiliar and creative ways.)
So how can you help people through the uncertainty of the bridge stage while taking advantage of the rich creative possibilities?
Just like in the closing stage, the authors first recommend planning ahead. This includes creating temporary systems, managing expectations, and anticipating challenges.
The first strategy the authors recommend is to create structure when possible. The bridge stage is characterized by uncertainty. The systems from before don’t exist and the future systems aren’t yet in place. You can protect stakeholders from some of this uncertainty by creating temporary structures until changes have been fully implemented. For example, you might have new short-term policies or procedures, a reconfiguring of teams, or additional training for supervisors and people transitioning to new roles.
Responding to Unplanned Change
In Managing Transitions, William and Susan Bridges focus their discussion on planned changes. However, many of the changes organizations experience are unplanned, making it challenging to proactively implement temporary systems to carry the organization through a specific change.
In these scenarios, it’s helpful to have a broadly applicable established “crisis response” plan that allows an organization to respond to sudden and unpredictable changes with speed and flexibility. A crisis response plan should include the following elements:
Regular assessment of trigger events: Maintain a clear understanding of potential events that might trigger a cascade of changes within the organization to be able to respond quickly when one occurs.
Established crisis team: Establish a small group of leaders that is empowered to make necessary decisions quickly while an organization is in crisis mode.
Communicated guiding principles: Communicate a clear set of guiding principles and priorities that shape decisions no matter what else is going on within the organization.
As you plan ahead, set realistic expectations. In the bridge stage, a lack of familiar systems and ways of doing things will likely cause productivity to suffer. Create short-term and realistic goals that acknowledge that people do not have the systems in place that will allow them to meet pre-transition output.
(Shortform note: John Kotter reframes the idea of setting “realistic expectations” as providing short-term benchmarks. He emphasizes the importance of team members seeing tangible progress toward long-term goals. For Kotter, it’s not just about managing expectations, it’s about breaking down large goals into more manageable steps, so everyone can see the progress being made. He also points out the importance of publicly celebrating those benchmarks when they’re met to fuel team motivation.)
Finally, remember to anticipate discomfort. People don’t always expect the discomfort of this stage in the transition process. They imagine moving smoothly from the old to the new. But this stage of the process is distinct and important. Remind stakeholders that the confusion and disorientation are normal and temporary.
(Shortform note: One strategy for dealing with discomfort is to approach it with curiosity. Tamar Chansky recommends thinking about being in discomfort as an opportunity to gather information about yourself. Ask questions about how you’re feeling and why. Staying curious about our own emotional response to change can help us manage our resistance to it and take it as an opportunity to increase our self-awareness.)
The bridge phase is characterized by uncertainty. Planning ahead can help mitigate some doubt, but leading with empathy is especially important during the potential chaos of this stage.
Leaders can start by prioritizing relationships. The authors point out that the doubt and uncertainty of the bridge stage can lead to feelings of isolation. Prioritize providing opportunities for stakeholders to strengthen their sense of identity with the organization by connecting intentionally with one another, whether through a team retreat or more informal after-work happy hours.
(Shortform note: The upheaval and uncertainty of the bridge phase have the potential to compromise team members' trust in the organization and each other. In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick M. Lencioni identifies a lack of trust as one potential root cause of team dysfunction. Prioritizing relationships is not only about facilitating social connections, but also sustaining and strengthening trust within your team.)
Also remember to encourage risk-taking and creativity. The bridge stage is already primed for creativity. Giving people permission to experiment and take risks will communicate trust in your team and strengthen relationships. You can amplify your team’s creative potential by providing opportunities for reflection, encouraging learning and experimentation, listening and responding to generated ideas, and resisting the urge to prematurely seek conclusions. The best place to start is by setting the example yourself. For example, host a brainstorming session with your whole team. Invite new ideas, no matter how outside the box.
(Shortform note: Research has shown that people consistently misunderstand the creative process. There is a common misconception that our creativity declines over time. In fact, the opposite is true. The more time spent ideating around a question or a challenge, the more creative we become. By not seeking premature conclusions, you’ll ensure that you don’t miss out on powerful or transformative ideas that emerge towards the end of a brainstorming session.)
Communication is key throughout every stage of the transition process. In the bridge phase, it’s easier for communication channels to fail as people wrestle with the implementation of new systems.
During the bridge phase, be intentional with how you talk about change. Is it a slog? A hurdle? Chaos? Try reframing it. Maybe it’s an opportunity to regroup? To take a deep breath? A time of germination? Language matters, so be clear about how you talk about this stage with your team—otherwise, you risk your team believing that the uncertainty of this stage is a reflection of poor decision-making and management.
(Shortform note: Carol Dweck, author of Mindset, speaks to the importance of reframing challenges as opportunities for growth rather than setbacks. Dweck argues that we do ourselves a disservice when we talk about challenges only as opportunities for failure. This is an example of communicating a fixed mindset in which the only two possible outcomes are success or failure. Communicating a growth mindset allows us to see growth, rather than perfection, as our measure of success.)
Also continue to monitor the transition. William and Susan Bridges suggest using a “Transition Monitoring Team”—a small group that represents multiple roles and levels of seniority within the organization. The team is responsible for getting a sense of how the transition is going and communicating relevant information to upper management. Whether or not it makes sense for you to implement a Transition Monitoring Team, it’s important to find a way to keep channels of communication open within the organization during this stage of the transition.
(Shortform note: John Kotter also recommends forming a “change leadership group.” Like William and Susan Bridges, he suggests that a change leadership group should be representative of every department and level of leadership within the organization. According to Kotter, developing a representative change leadership team will help secure organization-wide buy-in as changes are implemented.)
The previous section discussed strategies to effectively manage the tumultuous bridge stage of the transition. After muddling through the bridge stage, organizations have the opportunity for what the authors refer to as a “new beginning.” We’ll call this stage emerging.
William and Susan Bridges emphasize that the emerging stage doesn’t happen the same day that the changes take place. Even though new policies or team configurations have been implemented, it takes time for people to come to terms with the changes. Emerging can’t happen until there’s buy-in from your team. They’ll need to let go of the past, understand and accept the reason for the changes, and implement the changes required.
(Shortform note: Many leaders approach getting team buy-in with a “describe and defend” strategy. In these instances, leaders develop an idea and then sell it to their team as the logical way forward. However, a team is more likely to buy in to change when they have had the opportunity to discuss, question, and debate the idea. Including your team from the beginning of the conversation is important for true and long-lasting organizational buy-in.)
So what strategies can you use to help build an environment that’s more conducive to people emerging from the uncertainty of the bridge stage successfully?
Just as in the previous two phases, the first step is to plan ahead.
First, outline the transition step-by-step. Get specific. Organizational leaders often hold the big picture, but it’s equally important to have a clear plan of how to get from Point A to Point B. Make sure you know (and communicate) how big changes will affect your team members’ professional lives on a daily basis and what will be required of them through each step of the process. (Shortform: This step-by-step planning is the same skill required of a project manager. The Work Breakdown Structure is a helpful tool used by many project managers to divide a big project goal into more manageable tasks and to make estimates about the resources (time and money) that will be necessary to complete those tasks.)
Keep leading with empathy to build trust and buy-in. To increase buy-in, involve everyone. Be explicit about the role that each individual is expected (and has the opportunity) to play in the future of the organization. People want to understand where they fit in and how they can contribute. When possible, give everyone a role in the transition process as well. Knowing where they fit ensures that people continue to feel valued and invested in the process.
(Shortform note: Making sure that everyone on a team feels valued and included is an example of establishing psychological safety. Establishing psychological safety enables any team member to share their views and take risks without fear of retaliation or rejection, and the presence of psychological safety is a better indicator of team productivity than team members’ skill level or intellect. In Smarter Faster Better, Charles Duhigg encourages leaders to build psychological safety within their teams by making sure all team members have the opportunity to participate equally and being sensitive to people’s emotional well-being.)
Even when you feel you’ve communicated everything clearly, say it again. Keep reinforcing the why. What problems are the changes trying to address and why should people care? The communicated purpose needs to be specific, meaningful, authentic, and relevant to your team.
Communicating the Urgency of the Why
While William and Susan Bridges explain the importance of communicating the “why” behind the changes in the emerging stage, other change management experts, including John Kotter, put more emphasis on communicating the urgency of the “why” and communicating the urgency early on in the transition process.
In Leading Change, Kotter says that the first step in any change management plan is to instill a sense of urgency—an understanding that the impending change is not only necessary, but vital to the organization’s survival. According to Kotter, a lack of immediate crisis breeds complacency and resistance to change. He believes leaders must explain not only why the changes are happening, but also why a failure to implement the changes could be disastrous.
Don’t forget to share the long-term vision. This is the exciting part of any change. You can mitigate anxiety by offering a clear vision. Describe what the world will feel like once the dust has settled. What is the future vision of the organization that you are moving towards? To get on board, people need to be able to imagine how the end goal will look and feel.
Communicating a Shared Vision
Kotter agrees that communicating the organization’s long-term vision is crucial to the success of any transformation effort. Like William and Susan Bridges, he suggests that a shared vision has the power to connect a group of people around a common goal and increase collective buy-in.
Kotter adds that a well-articulated vision also has the power to act as a lens through which to consider all important decisions. It clarifies what is important and what isn’t. For example, if an initiative or project doesn’t actively contribute to the success of the organizational vision, it’s not worth the company’s time, energy, or resources.
Up until this point, we’ve focused on the process of a single transition. Unfortunately, rarely do changes occur only one at a time.
Organizational leaders often grapple with multiple coinciding and related changes that require them to manage multiple coinciding and related transitions. Moreover, while there has never been a time in our history when change hasn’t occurred, many people would argue that the rate of change has increased dramatically in recent years.
For instance, consider the example of how much changed for the global workforce with the outbreak of Covid-19. Employees and managers, already managing typical changes in their field, were quickly forced to navigate the exceptional transition of remote or hybrid work and asked to implement new strategies and technologies that were previously unimaginable.
Because transitions don’t occur in isolation, the three stages of the transition process often happen concurrently and converge on one another.
The Importance of Agility
While not a strategy mentioned by William and Susan Bridges, German entrepreneur Stefan Hansen argues that agility is what matters most when responding to continuous change.
Like William and Susan Bridges, he acknowledges that shifting consumer demands and ongoing innovations in digital technology have increased the rate of change experienced by organizations. But while William and Susan Bridges advocate for intentional transition management, Hasen argues that the ability to respond to change quickly and adapt is the better indicator of long-term success.
The Bridges Transition Model emphasizes the importance of taking time with planning and decision-making when responding to change. The authors reiterate that a transition isn’t necessarily a quick process. Hansen, on the other hand, seems to suggest that speed is of the essence when responding to change.
So how can you effectively manage concurrent and converging transitions when changes are ongoing? The authors offer two main strategies as tools for coping with ongoing change.
First, plan for change itself. Though we can’t predict the future, anticipating how an organization is growing and potential future challenges will allow you to prepare for future changes that might otherwise catch you off guard. Don’t be afraid to imagine the worst thing that could happen. How would you respond? What would you need to do? By considering what could go wrong, you’ll be better prepared to manage the organization when things fall apart.
(Shortform note: Knowing we cannot fully predict the future, Charles Duhigg advocates for the power of “probabilistic thinking.” Probabilistic thinking is a cognitive process that involves identifying all potential outcomes of your decision and the probability of each one occurring. Studies show that probabilistic thinking can increase the accuracy of your prediction by more than 50%, allowing you to better prepare for a broad range of future changes.)
Second, build a team that’s prepared for transitions. Give your team opportunities to collaborate, be creative, and step outside their defined roles. A team that has a clear vision of the entire organization and that has practiced working outside its comfort zone will be better prepared to weather any unexpected changes.
Building Change-Resilient Teams
The best time to build your team’s resilience to change is before a crisis occurs, but that’s not always possible. Sometimes leaders take over in the middle of a crisis, or a crisis occurs to a newly-formed team. The good news is that there are opportunities to build a more resilient team at any point, whether that be before a sudden change, in the middle of it, or after it has occurred.
Before change: Leaders can build a team’s resilience to change ahead of time by clarifying how team members’ roles interconnect, encouraging improvisation, creating psychological safety, and providing a general protocol for crisis response.
In the middle of change: When actively undergoing change, leaders can build a team’s resilience by providing information clearly and efficiently, setting concrete goals, and reframing challenges as opportunities.
After change: After surviving a major change, leaders can build a team’s resilience by providing opportunities to debrief and learn from the team’s successes and mistakes. Honest and open feedback is critical to becoming a more resilient team moving forward.
The Bridges Transition Model makes a clear distinction between change and transition. William and Susan Bridges suggest that being able to effectively manage change requires understanding the difference between the two.
Think of a change you experienced recently in a professional context. Describe what changed.
What was your internal emotional response to those changes?
How did leaders manage these changes? In what ways did they support the internal transition process of their team members?
When leading a team through a transition, William and Susan Bridges recommend the following strategies for each stage of the transition process: planning ahead, leading with empathy, and communicating with intention. Imagine that you’re crafting a transition plan that accounts for each of these strategies.
Think of a change that needs to be implemented at work. Briefly describe it here.
Planning Ahead: Who will be impacted by these changes? What do they stand to lose?
Lead with Empathy: What’s one thing you can do to acknowledge the loss people will experience?
Communicate with Intention: What’s the problem this change seeks to solve? How will you communicate this to your team?