THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE CHANGE PROCESS

Although there are many psychological theories of individual change (notably the psychodynamic and learning theories), few have been applied to understand change as it occurs in social systems.

Lewin: The Process of Change

Much of the theorizing on the change process is rooted in Lewin’s original con­cepts of unfreezing, movement, and refreezing (Lewin, 1947). This is a linear description often applied to understanding change both in individuals and social systems:

Unfreezing → Movement → Refreezing

Unfreezing. In Lewin’s framework, the first step toward change is unfreezing, or developing openness toward something different, a melting of the solidity of the current state.

Driving and Restraining Forces. Lewin’s application of force field analysis to characterize human social behavior is relevant to understanding the process of unfreezing. Force field analysis is a useful method for portraying the array of forces acting on a system at any given time, and it serves to illustrate the cur­rent state of the system. Among these forces are those that promote the change goal (driving forces) and those working in opposition to it (restraining forces). Further, the forces may differ in strength in facilitating or hindering movement. These driving and restraining forces, along with their relative strengths, together identify a “quasi-stationary equilibrium,” which reflects the current state (albeit always changing in minute ways at any given moment).

Driving forces are those motivations, attitudes, behaviors, or other charac­teristics of a situation that help move toward the goal or unfreeze from the pre­sent situation. In an example of someone trying to get in better physical shape, some of the forces might be tiring easily when climbing stairs, increasing diffi­culty getting around a tennis court, discomfort in clothes that are getting too tight, or a desire to feel better.

Restraining forces are the opposite: they are the constellation of forces work­ing against change, working to keep the status quo. Again, with the goal of get­ting in better shape, some examples of restraining forces are low willpower and motivation, enjoyment of eating as a social experience, a preference for sloth, and finding oneself often in the presence of lots of unhealthy food.

To begin the process of change, or unfreezing, the driving forces must be rel­atively stronger than the resisting forces, and a certain level of tension must be created. Increasing tension is a key factor in unfreezing and creating motivation to change. It is the fuel that powers the beginning of the change process. For the tension to be productive, it must be experienced at an optimal level. If the

candle is brought too close to the ice cube, or for too long, it produces too much tension. If it is kept too far away, not enough unfreezing occurs, and not enough tension. Some feelings associated with tension include stress, discom­fort, and anxiety. A variety of methods may be used to create productive levels of tension. Examples include the CompStat process and any of the many formal methods used in organizations to create feedback opportunities (multirater feed­back, performance appraisals).

A useful construct for understanding a system’s ability to handle tension is tolerance for ambiguity or the unknown. This refers to one’s ability to handle the feelings generated by the tension in a productive way. In fact, tolerance for ambiguity is a construct cited as a core quality associated with creativity and effective leadership, as well as productive conflict resolution and successful change.

As an example, the legal order to break up the Bell system and AT&T to cre­ate competition in long-distance phone service created tension in that system (AT&T) to change (Tunstall, 1985). In this case, an external event (a federal court order) stimulated (actually forced) a process of unfreezing from the sta­tus quo. A situation that once worked—that was comfortable, successful, and stable—now becomes uncomfortable, does not work so well any longer, and forces people to look at something in a new way.

Movement. Once openness or a sufficient state of tension has been achieved, the next step involves transition or movement: taking some action that changes or moves the social system to a new level. Some examples of this movement in our “get-in-shape” example are eating better foods (to lose weight), walking to work rather than taking the bus (to get oneself in shape), and similar activities. Additional examples in other realms are reorganizing employees’ job responsi­bilities (to increase organizational efficiency) and engaging in acts of civil dis­obedience (to improve the social, economic, or political conditions of a particular group).

Although these activities signifying movement seem rather straightforward, complex processes are operating that make such movement difficult. Primary among these are restraining forces, described earlier, which are also a form of resistance to change. This resistance is a key psychological component playing a strong role in the transition process. Resistance is mobilization of energy to protect the status quo in the face of a real or perceived threat to it. Resistance may be thought of as behavior intended to protect one from the effect of real or imagined change (Zander, 1950). It is a key factor influencing the intensity of the conflicts that arise during change, and the ability to resolve them productively. Early on, the degree of resistance has an impact on the ease of unfreezing. The stronger the resistance, the greater the effort is needed to unfreeze from the present state.

Refreezing. Refreezing involves establishing actions or processes that support the new level of behavior and lead to resilience against those resistant forces encouraging old patterns and behaviors. In other words, deliberate steps must be taken to ensure that the new behaviors “stick,” or remain relatively permanent in the system. This is often a process of restabilizing a system to its new or changed level of functioning. For example, a group whose members are trying to embrace a norm of not talking about members behind their backs might adopt a process of frequent group meetings or avoiding discussion of interpersonal issues if all are not present. Refreezing may also be understood in terms of the degree of commitment to the new, changed state that exists in the system.

Commitment is a psychological construct that has received much empirical attention as a predictor of key organizational phenomena such as retention and performance. According to Salancik (1977), commitment is a state in which we become bound by our actions, where our beliefs about those actions keep us doing them. Salancik defines three aspects of committing behavior. It is visible, observable to oneself and others; it is irrevocable and cannot be taken back; and it is behavior undertaken of one’s own volition, or by choice. This is linked to personal responsibility: we usually accept responsibility for behavior we enact by choice.

This last component of commitment, volition, makes evidence for it ambigu­ous; it is not observable and can only be attributed. It is this element that dis­tinguishes commitment from compliance. Here, I use compliance to refer to behavior whose origin lies outside of oneself and is based on the perceived values of the system. Argyris (1998) refers to compliance as external commit­ment, where the desired state is one of internal commitment. Many strategies for refreezing a system end up achieving compliance to change because the methods used to bring about change do not offer choice for those whose com­mitment is needed.

There are often many opportunities that “tempt” the system to move back to behaviors associated with the prechange state. This process has been referred to as commitment testing (Marcus, 1994). It occurs when we are faced with the choice of reverting to old behaviors. For example, once we change our eating habits to be healthier, commitment testing occurs as we see the pastry carousel at the local diner, or smell butter cookies baking in the kitchen, or are invited to have a piece of seven-layer cake at a birthday party. Or, referring back to the situation where we are trying to change a group norm, we are often seduced by the invitation from colleague when they ask some variation of “can I tell you something about Chris that just happened?... but you have to PROMISE not to tell anyone else.” Our response to these situations is an opportunity to test as well as renew our commitment to our new behavior.

Often, commitment testing engenders conflict. In the dietary examples, one conflict is intrapersonal, the other interpersonal. The desire to support the changed state is incompatible with the desire to revert to old habits. The resolu­tion of this conflict affects the level of success of the change. To the extent that these conflicts are resolved in support of the changed state (looking away from the carousel, leaving the kitchen, or not agreeing to the colleague’s secrecy deal), the change is likely to be successful. That is, the refrozen state is likely to stay frozen.

Beckhard: Managing Planned Change

Beckhard and Harris (1987) and others (such as Bridges, 1980, 1986) have applied these concepts to understand and manage planned organization change; they use slightly different terms when applying Lewin’s concepts. Beckhard’s model can be represented as follows:

Current state → Transition state → Desired future state

When this model is applied to organization change, it often helps members develop a deeper understanding of the process and phases of planned change. Though linear looking, Beckhard suggests beginning with the end. The first step for those involved is to envision a desired future state. This helps to establish a goal for the change and serves the purpose of beginning the process of unfreezing, by creating an openness to something different. Similarly, it has been found that starting with what people desire in the future generates energy, enthusiasm, moti­vation, and commitment to the plan and its implementation (Lindaman and Lippitt, 1979). Once this is undertaken, the next step is to move backward and assess the current state of the organization or entity—its current capabilities, capacities, and so forth. With the envisioned future and assessment of current state, the next phase is to create a transition state. This is based, in part, on the gaps between the cur­rent state and the desired future state. These gaps (like feedback) create tension, which serve as a motivating force in the transition state. The larger the gap, or dis­crepancy, the greater the tension. The transition state is a way for a system to bal­ance or modulate its own need for stability with its need for change.

Although this model is most often used in large, complex organization change, the concepts are applicable on both the individual and small group levels. Indeed, the model has been used successfully in managing many types of change, such as future search (Weisbord, 1992; on future search, see also Chapter Thirty-Three). This is a methodology for gathering all key stakeholders of a group or organization to identify and plan a desired future together. It takes place over a relatively short period of time (several days) and is intended to generate motivation, overcome resistance, and strengthen commitment to the agreed-on change plan.

Lewin’s and Beckhard’s models are presented as linear conceptions of a sequential process of change. The models imply a logic and ordering of the phases one goes through in the change process. In practice, these models of change rarely feel as though they move in a linear fashion (see Burke, 2002). Rather Burke, Prochaska, and others refer to planned change more as a spiral than a line. There are many unanticipated, unintended consequences that affect and are affected by the intended, planned change effort. Further, there is little empirical work examining the factors that may facilitate or hinder moving from one stage to the next. For example, what might be some of the conditions conducive to unfreezing? In other words, what conditions motivate unfreezing? How can resistance be weakened or overcome without inducing compliance? What factors make refreezing difficult? How is commitment to change maintained? We turn now to a discussion of these and related questions.

Motivation and Unfreezing

Whenever a change is contemplated in any social system, a key question that is often raised among the leaders of planned change is, how can we get people to “buy in” to a new state of affairs? The key psychological process these lead­ers are grappling with concerns generating the motivation to change, to unfreeze from the current state.

Creation of conflict is inherent in the process of unfreezing. The nature of the conflict, though differing with the situation, may be expressed as follows: “Our desire to do things as we’ve been doing them is incompatible with our need and desire to do things differently in the future.” In other words, the pre­sent state is incompatible with the desired or necessary future state. The prospect of change spurs this conflict. Beckhard’s model brings out this conflict in identifying gaps between the current state and the desired future. Bartunek (1993) refers to this as a conflict of cognitive schemas—our beliefs and expec­tations about ourselves and our environment. The original schema is no longer adequate and a new schema is not yet apparent. The experience of this conflict often gives rise to resistance, those forces working to protect the status quo.

Conflict creates the tension or motivating forces that call into question the status quo; it contributes to the process of unfreezing from the current state. Therefore, a curious question to consider is how to create conflict that increases the level of tension to unfreeze from the current state to move out of one’s “comfort zone.” I briefly focus on two areas: feedback and social support.

As mentioned earlier, a common method used to generate motivation centers on providing feedback to the system. This can occur in many forms. The intent is to identify and make salient discrepancies between the current state and the desired or ideal state. Feedback, or information obtained about a system from outside of the system, is a common way to increase people’s understanding of the need for change. Information constituting feedback is intended to stimulate the kind of conflict that motivates change. Nonetheless, the conflict that might be generated by the feedback can be handled in a variety of ways, sometimes, but not always, in ways that increase the motivation to change.

There is often ample feedback available from our social environment. Unfortunately, though, such social feedback is rarely unambiguous; that is, it can be interpreted in multiple ways. Further, our interpretation (on the receiv­ing end) is strongly influenced by factors such as our own needs and experi­ences, the context and timing of when it occurs, the sender or source of the feedback, and so on. Meaningful, accurate feedback can be most useful as a motivator of change when it occurs in a context of support, is nonevaluative, nonjudgmental, and builds on existing strengths of the group, community, or organization.

Earlier, I described the process of unfreezing as generating the energy to change and tolerating the ambiguity that unfreezing can foster. What contributes to the ability of an individual or group to tolerate ambiguity? One element concerns the perception that one possesses or has access to the resources needed to manage the unknown. Social support is often cited as one of those critical resources in managing significant personal change. Approaches using a “twelve-step” model (for example, Alcoholics Anony­mous) rely on social support as a way to strengthen people’s tolerance for the stressful, anxious state that accompanies ambiguity during change. Social support can derive from many sources. In these programs, it comes from working in a group with individuals who share a common personal goal and who often have had similar personal experiences outside of the context of the twelve-step meetings. Social support may also stem from benevolent leader­ship or when those in authority contribute to the social climate in a way con­ducive to individuals’ being able to tolerate the ambiguity of change. Behaviors by those in authority that may enhance people’s ability to tolerate ambiguity include doing things to contribute to feelings of safety, keeping some aspects of the social environment stable and predictable, highlighting opportunities for members to support each other, and so forth.

The CompStat process (2005), as mentioned earlier, is a feedback method that was successfully used to unfreeze the New York City Police Department from the status quo. The “public” forum in which comparisons were presented created a certain degree of tension among precinct commanders responsible for their neighborhoods to improve their crime statistics.

Using formal and informal feedback methods to create motivation for change is common in organizational life: in skill training, for example when we are practicing our public presentation skills, videotaping practice sessions can be useful in enhancing the trainee’s understanding of the potential gaps between where they see themselves on the tape and where they want to be as a presenter. Another practice in many organizational contexts is the use of multirater feedback to an individual in order to generate a level of productive tension by revealing a discrepancy between the idealized self and the way others see the individual.

Movement and Resistance

I stated earlier that resistance serves a protective function in any change. At the same time, resistance is cited as a key factor working against successful change. This presents a curious paradox: resistance is a necessary part of change yet can be its undoing. Our interest is in looking at two aspects of resistance: how to identify and diagnose resistance when it emerges and how to find ways to weaken it rather than strengthen it. Is change possible without resistance? Is the goal of a successful change effort to prevent forces of resistance from emerg­ing? What factors weaken or strengthen resistance to change?

Many common practices surrounding planned change efforts view resistance similarly to conflict. That is, it is something to get rid of, stamp out, push down, and in any other manner treat as an undesirable force that needs to be eradi­cated. Or it may be seen merely as a nuisance that one must “get past.” If the resistant forces are linked to specific people or groups (with such language as “troublemakers,” “naysayers,” “malcontents”), a common tactic used by the larger part of the system is to try to weaken or get rid of those people—and by implication any resistance.

This orientation may sometimes lead to successful change, but it overlooks the potentially constructive role that resistance plays in the change process. In other words, resistance is a naturally emerging part of the change process or any movement away from the status quo (Connor, 1992). As Klein notes, “a nec­essary prerequisite of successful change is the mobilization of forces against it” (1966, p. 502). Change without resistance is akin to premature conflict resolu­tion; the parties involved manage to avoid those necessary parts of the process that lead to real change (or real resolution).

It is likely that the conflict expressed by individuals or groups labeled as “resisters” is a type of misattributed conflict, in which the true conflict is about the planned change. In other words, conflict that emerges as expression of resistance is between the wrong parties and, in turn, over the wrong issues. Such conflicts can be viewed as a manifestation of the central conflict in any change—between what we want to be (a desired future) and what we are (the current state). Thus, in using Beckhard’s model, we uncover this central con­flict early on, when we highlight the gaps between where we are and where we want to be.

It is useful to consider the observation that resistance to change may be man­ifested in an infinite number of creative ways (K. Sole, personal communica­tion). Often, though, it is difficult to understand how particular behaviors or actions manifest resistance.

As an example, consider a patient’s decision to change therapists just as he is about to make significant progress in his therapeutic situation. This can be understood as a legitimate desire for the patient to seek better therapy. Another possibility is to view this as a form of resistance to the patient’s movement toward greater psychological health. The therapist can handle this situation in a variety of ways. The most constructive might be for the therapist to support the patient at this stage. This may involve reminding him that therapeutic progress is sometimes very difficult. Or it may mean suggesting to the patient that he is here by his own choice, and if he feels he would be better served by another therapist he should do so. Properly diagnosing and taking subsequent actions takes great skill on the part of the therapist. Furthermore, it contributes to the strength of the patient.

Resistance and Conflict. A system cannot change without experiencing conflict. How it is handled profoundly determines the success of the effort to change. Fur­thermore, there is a strong similarity between the process involved in successful change efforts and that involved in constructive conflict resolution.

The goal of planned change efforts is not necessarily to prevent forces of resistance from emerging, but rather to manage them productively, to weaken rather than strengthen them. Doing so is a complex and fascinating challenge. Further, there is a reciprocal relationship between handling resistance appro­priately (in ways that weaken it) and the process of constructive conflict reso­lution. The same process used to weaken forces of resistance may also promote constructive conflict resolution. Conversely, if inappropriate strategies are used in handling resistance, it is likely that destructive processes will be used to deal with the emerging conflicts.

With this in mind, what factors might serve to strengthen or weaken resis­tance? Though little empirical work exists in this area, some common theoreti­cal notions are available. One of the key variables influencing the strength of resistance occurs among those most affected by change. It concerns increasing this group’s understanding of the need for change and participation in its plan­ning. To the extent that there is little understanding of the need for change and little participation in planning among those affected by it, the stronger the forces of resistance are likely to be (Zander, 1950). Conversely, if there is a high degree of understanding of and participation in the planned change, the resisting forces become weaker (Coch and French, 1948).

It can be hypothesized that the strongest forces of resistance are expressed by those with the greatest interest in preserving the status quo. Furthermore, resistance is aggravated and hence strengthened as more energy is directed to eradicating it. The more we try to push against the forces of resistance (through persuasion, logic, coercion) in an attempt to weaken or abolish them, the stronger they become, and the more likely they are to manifest themselves in a multitude of ways. Zander (1950) and Deutsch (1973) identify several other fac­tors likely to increase resistance:

• Basing the logic for the change on personal reasons rather than objective reasons

• Disregarding already established group or organizational norms

• Lack of uniformity or agreement in the rationale for the change

• Using illegitimate techniques that fall outside of the boundaries and norms of interaction

• Negative sanctions such as punishments and threats

• Sanctions that are inappropriate in kind (such as reward of money for agreeing to support a group’s strategic direction)

• Influence that is excessive in magnitude

Efforts to diminish resistant forces through coercion or other means of force may lead to temporary compliance rather than lasting change (Deci, 1995).

Consider a decision to close down a plant manufacturing a product that is no longer profitable. This action has varying impact depending on how the resis­tance is handled. A common way of handling this type of change is to antici­pate the resistant reactions of those most affected and respond to them with persuasive, convincing, well-thought-out, rehearsed, logical statements about such things as the financial need to take the action. Similarly, another approach occurs when those responsible for the decisions make every attempt to avoid the employees most affected—to lay low, disappear, or hide after the announce­ment is made. If those affected are denied the opportunity to express their feelings and thoughts (especially feelings of loss), strong negative attitudes are likely to emerge, along with the potential to sabotage the best interests of the organization. In other words, these actions often strengthen the forces of resistance.

Constructively Handling Resistance. We identify several factors that may strengthen resistance. What, though, are some of the conditions that may weaken resistance and foster a constructive resolution process? Some of them are a smaller change, keeping parts of the system stable; giving all parties a chance to mourn the loss that any change entails; making abundant resources available during change; and involvement by those most affected in planning their own fate. Let us consider each of these in some detail.

The first condition is a smaller change (or amount of deviation from the sta­tus quo). It is not necessary, though, to assume that only small conflicts can be resolved productively and thereby yield small change. It is useful to apply Roger Fisher’s notions on fractionating conflict (1964). His methodology suggests that we first look at any conflict and break it down into manageable pieces. While he applied these notions to large international conflicts, they can be applied to conflicts of even the smallest magnitude. Once fractionated, or broken down, Fisher suggests to work on resolving the smaller pieces first. This allows parties to experience constructive resolution. This can enhance the par­ties’ confidence as they progress to working on resolving larger issues, which thereby may produce greater change. This same notion of fractionating has been applied to organization change as well. In the work of Schaffer and Siegel, (2005), the creation of smaller change goals and subsequent efforts to meet those goals were more likely to produce desired change than attempting to focus primarily on a larger (more distant, amorphous) change goal whose out­comes were more difficult to see and feel by those expected to bring them about.

Another condition for weakening resistance involves keeping parts of the sys­tem stable. This is related to issues concerning the size of the change. Here, though, it is important to pay attention to the balance between stability and change. If there is too much change going on (simultaneously moving to a new house, becoming a parent, switching jobs), this may generate a level of tension that is too high for change to be productive. Keeping parts of the system stable can reduce the level of stress and tension the parties experience and therefore foster constructive resolution.

Giving parties the chance to mourn the loss that any change entails is another critical influence that may serve to weaken forces of resistance. As Levinson (1976) and Bridges (1986) have written, in any change, there is loss. If parties are able to recognize and express feelings of loss associated with change, they can move forward in the change process. Many cultures, includ­ing our own, have elaborate rituals for mourning the death of a person. Such rituals enable the mourners to accept the loss and move on. Similarly, in any change process opportunities to mourn the loss of the past play a valuable role in helping people move toward a desired future. An example that I often think about is from a company that was being acquired by a larger institution and before doing so had given employees a “tribute package,” which included a kind of yearbook with pictures and artifacts from the history of the organization. Included in this “yearbook” were spaces for employees to have colleagues sign and write in their notes and reflections, and include their own memorabilia about their years with the organization (Brooks, 1998).

Moreover, these opportunities may allow the parties to move on in more pro­ductive ways than when such opportunities are denied. One difficulty in this concerns our natural tendency to avoid thinking about the past as we move toward a desired future. This is often apparent in many planned organization change efforts. There is often a taboo against speaking about or holding on to symbols of the past. A primitive assumption implies that the past is bad, negative, to be forgotten, and all of the hopes and dreams become bound up in the desired future. Thus, it is important to examine our assumptions about the past in order to successfully move toward the future. I am reminded here of an executive, relatively new to a recently merged financial institution, walking into the office of an “old-timer,” someone who had been with the institution over several mergers. Upon seeing mementos of past events and celebrations con­taining old company logos, she casually and rather lightheartedly mentioned to him that he ought to remove them from his shelf. While she did not mean to be demeaning or insulting in any way, I heard this as symbolic of these notions that what no longer exists should be erased from our identity, so that a new col­lective identity can more easily emerge.

It appears that one ingredient that might lower resistance is abundant avail­ability of resources (time, money, people) to support change. However, there is a paradox here as well. Abundant resources, under some conditions, may serve to undermine the change by lowering the necessary degree of tension and there­fore weaken the motivation needed to change. (For further relevant discussion, see Chapter Eighteen).

One last factor, written about extensively in the field of organization devel­opment, is to involve those most affected by change in its planning and imple­mentation (see, for example, Burke, 1987, 2002). Participation in planning one’s future can have beneficial effects on one’s future! Involving people affected by change in planning and implementation serves to increase their commitment to any change.

With reference to handling a plant closing, I suggest that one alternative strat­egy is stronger presence by the leaders of the change effort among those most affected by it. The leaders of the operation could meet with employees and encourage them to express their reactions and concerns. This type of action, though understandably difficult, may serve to weaken the resistant forces productively. Further, having a chance to candidly express attitudes, conflicts, concerns, and biases in a setting where they can be heard by those with power to change the situation (regardless of whether they do change it) often serves to weaken those forces. There are many possibilities other than simply closing the plant and making immediate mass layoffs. However, it should be noted, that participation itself, though it may lower resistance, does not insure a coopera­tive process of resolving the inevitable conflicts that emerge in such a situation. In many ways, it increases the likelihood that conflicts will emerge and be brought to the table. This can be a sign of healthy movement to yield lasting change!

An alternative perspective on these notions of resistance comes from Gladwell’s ideas from his book The Tipping Point (2002). He likens change (no matter how well planned) to the spread of a virus, or “rage,” that sweeps across and engrosses the majority of a social system. However, this does not happen from a “big bang” or by overwhelming the system, but rather through three characteristics:

Contagiousness, or word-of-mouth spreading of an idea, product, event, desired future

Stickiness, or the idea that small incidents or messages can have big effects and eventually will tip the balance in a particular direction, which becomes almost impossible to reverse

The idea that change happens suddenly once a critical mass is reached

He argues that this type of change happens due to three kinds of people who have strong influence in a social system: salespeople who persuade, relate well, and empathize with those they are trying to influence; connectors—those who are part of the relevant social networks and have strong influence in those networks; and mavens—those individuals or groups who are collectors of information, dri­ven to know much about a particular issue or phenomenon or product. Ultimately, these ideas have as their basis the assumption that peer pressure has more power to create change than those in formal authority. The dynamics of motivation, resistance, and commitment are bound up in Gladwell’s notions.

Gaining Commitment

Commitment by a critical mass of people is the sufficient condition needed to sustain any change. It is the force that refreezes a system to its new, changed state. There are methods that may serve to increase the level of commitment to a new, changed state. Several strategies are similar to those methods useful for weakening forces of resistance. As just discussed, it is widely accepted that meaningful participation and involvement enable those affected to commit to the change; participation leads to commitment.

In a conflict situation, several types of action may lead to increased commitment to bring about constructive changes: recognizing that both parties are engaged by choice; acknowledging that either can walk away at any time; making unilateral statements of one’s own commitment to a mutually productive resolution; and placing oneself in a situation where avoidance of the conflict is less likely.

We can influence our own and others’ level of commitment by telling the party we are in conflict about our commitment to constructive resolution during the early stages of the conflict: “I’m determined to work this out in a way that we can both be satisfied with” or “I’ll persist until we’re both comfortable.” Such statements are public, cannot be taken back, and intend to give both parties an opportunity to commit to engaging in constructive conflict-handling skills.

Another type of action is to place oneself in a situation where avoidance of the conflict is less likely. By voluntarily doing so, we force ourselves to take action that we might not otherwise take. If I’m angry at a colleague for some action he took but concerned about letting him know I’m angry, I might avoid contact with him and therefore the prospect of telling him about my feelings. If, though, I vol­untarily place myself in closer proximity to him, I increase the likelihood that we will work on the conflict, and present a greater possibility for productive benefit than continued avoidance.

It is important to further differentiate processes that might increase commit­ment from those that increase compliance. From the preceding discussion we can understand that it is difficult to discern when a group or individual is complying with someone else’s wishes and when the behavior reflects true change. In any system where there is a power hierarchy, gaining commitment to change becomes especially tricky. Although the outcome (committing to change versus comply­ing with another’s wishes) looks the same on the surface, understanding the methods used is one way to see which outcome we are headed for. That is, when those higher in the authority structure use methods of coercion (methods likely to feed forces of resistance), in a context where two-way communication between the hierarchy levels is not supported, the desired behaviors are surely meant to comply with the wishes of those in higher authority. Further, the long­term effect of compliance is that behaviors revert to the prechange state, when­ever the people above are not around. As an example, consider efforts of parents to change a particular behavior of a child (burping, for example) that is often considered socially unacceptable among many adults. If those with greater power use methods that diminish forces of resistance (such as relying on high partici­pation and involvement among those lower in the hierarchy—engaging the child in active discussion, active listening, providing opportunities to mourn the loss of what people are giving up), they may see greater commitment to the changes being sought. This is visible as the behaviors “stick” even when no one in higher authority is around to notice them.