Some of you may remember our e-mail back in November 2002 about the "change curve" a model that is often used when understanding how individuals respond to change. We were proposing how this could be applied to the organisation's response to change (copies available on request). The author of this theory has recently died, and we thought you might like to hear more about the original thinking, and our own thoughts on how this applies to how we use it today.
The model was conceived in the 1960's by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, a Swiss-born physician whose blunt views on care for the dying (thanatology) polarised the US medical establishment, and moved thanatology into mainstream medical care. In Elisabeth's first seminal work "On Death and Dying" the model was originally termed "the five stages of grief". She proposed that a patient, when told their illness is terminal, would progress through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and then acceptance (DABDA), and that their care should reflect this. She held that these stages could apply to any dramatic life change, and the five stages began to be applied more widely. Eventually, in the 1980's the model became accepted wisdom in the care of terminal patients and remains hugely influential today. In the 1990's medical opinion began to turn against her teachings, moving towards a more individual approach to death. She herself began getting involved with spiritualism, cults and ghosts, although her many books continued to sell by the thousands. She ended her life as a virtual recluse in Arizona . She was very against euthanasia, describing her teachings as "help you to live until you die".
At SKAI, we have found it interesting to reflect upon the original DABDA terms rather than the ones we use today (shock, denial, anger, acceptance, experimentation - which don't form a useful acronym!). The principle of the change curve when used in OD work is also that performance levels change throughout the change curve journey. We have always wondered about the dip usually signalled before acceptance and if, as Elisabeth originally named it, the label is actually "depression" that would explain things, especially on how to adjust the interventions and tactics one might use. Also "bargaining" as opposed to "experimentation" implies a slightly different mindset on the part of the individuals/organisations at this stage. We think these words better reflect how people typically behave, and therefore, of course how to adjust the tactics you might use to help them through.
Do let us know what you think of the words Elisabeth Kubler-Ross used in her original work and whether that changes your perception, and use, of the change curve. Also, given the age of the model (over 40 years) do you think it is still a valid way of gauging, and then designing interventions around, individuals' and organisations' response to change. |
homepage