Weary (and wary) of change

There are at least two sorts of changes, perhaps more. The first sort is the type of change that life brings about, that you can do nothing about--innate change. We age, we grow older, we grow old. There are many changes connected to aging that we can merely observe in ourselves and others; we cannot stop the progression of time. Illness and death are part of the journey. We learn to accept this type of change, albeit grudgingly at times, mostly because there is nothing we can really do about it. At some point you realize that it's best not to think too much about it and to enjoy the days and years that are given you. Because not all people get that chance, as has become all too clear to me during the past decade. 

The other type of change is external change. It is not a natural part of human life as is innate change, but it is a part of our lives that has consequences for us. It is often a type of change that can be forced upon you by a workplace or an organization, or by events in one's personal life that you have not instigated. It can be unsettling change, in that you have to react to it in one form or another, either passively or actively. Many choose the passive route, others choose the proactive route. Regardless, this type of change will affect your life and change it irrevocably--marriage, children, divorce, a major move, a bad job, a good job, retirement. They are changes we can choose, but sometimes they are not. And it is when this type of change is forced upon us that problems can arise. 

During the past two decades or so, modern workplaces have put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the necessity for employees to be able to change (almost at a moment's notice). I remember when I took a year-long leadership course here in Oslo; the operative (Norwegian/Danish) word was 'endringsparat' (ready for change). As a leader, it was important that your employees were endringsparat. An entire module was dedicated to how to lead employees through major workplace changes, and how to deal with those employees who were resistant to change. It was an interesting module, to say the least. Discussions of major mergers came up, and our teacher took an informal poll of the class--how many had been through such a major change as a merger and felt that the outcome was successful. Only one or two people raised their hands. The majority did not, and when quizzed, told stories of fiascos and failures to communicate that torpedoed such workplace changes. There was massive resistance to the changes that ensued in the wake of the merger. What was not commented upon or discussed was the timescale involved in such major changes. How quickly do leaders expect employees to adapt to change? Mergers, for example, are such major changes that it wouldn't surprise me if it took a decade or more for employees to become used to the idea. I don't think most leaders look at this aspect--the length of time involved for employees to adapt to and to accept change. I think they should look more closely at exactly this aspect. 

It is possible for employees to become weary and wary of change. Just hearing the word 'change' can be anathema for some employees, and I think that's because they feel that they have had no say in the matter. Yet another change has been forced on them, that they are expected to accept immediately. That can only lead to conflicts and failure to communicate. I think the time window for measuring the outcome of change should be long. I think management should allow at least five to ten years for employees to adapt to major changes. But that is rarely the case. It all has to be wrapped up nicely with a pretty bow, so the package can be displayed as a 'success'. But how do you measure that success? Did you talk to your employees?

I know several leaders who are young (in their forties) and older (around sixty or in their sixties). All of them have faced situations of major change that they have had to implement or are responsible for initiating. All of them have expressed mild to strong surprise that many of their employees appear to be resistant to those changes. They don't get it, they don't understand what they've done wrong. I try to tell them that perhaps their employees are weary of change. And that some are most likely wary of change. I was, during a period of too many changes about fifteen years ago. I listened to the svada (empty words, empty phrases, meaningless talk about great ambitions for this and that) and thought 'been there, done that'. So many times I can't count. How many times can you change yourself, start over, reinvent yourself, market yourself and your dreams, and to what end? Are we all to conquer the world? Most of us are good at what we do, and that should be enough. But in today's modern workplace, it's not, at least not for many modern workplace leaders. They have to do something, they have to effect change, they have to be remembered for such things. They have to 'motivate' their employees and make them endringsparat. It borders on hysterical. I prefer the non-hysterical approach. 

Through all the years, there has been change, whether modern leaders see it or not. Workplaces change, not because of artificial changes forced on employees, but because the world around us changes. We communicate via internet and digital meetings because technology in the world has made it possible for us to do so. That changes a workplace. Emails changed workplaces for good. They also changed personal communication for good. Smart phones likewise. IT departments are large and necessary entities in most companies; just try living without your computer when it's down for two days. So changes have been implemented gradually over the years in response to the external world. It is the artificial changes, the forced and often unnecessary changes, that cause problems. Leaders who are truly interested in the wellbeing of their employees should learn to distinguish between what are necessary and what are unnecessary changes. The latter can wear down the morale and motivation of many employees, whether modern leaders like it or not. 

 

Adjusting to continuous change

This coming year promises a good number of changes in my workplace. Most of them will be physical, in the sense that they involve physically moving several research groups and equipment from one floor to another floor in our building. That was decided a while ago, but as always, it takes a while for changes to be effectuated. The physical move will happen in March. Those research groups remaining behind will be sharing lab space with the routine functions and services in my department; those functions and services need more room, so the next major change and adjustment will involve how we share that space, how we discuss our needs amicably and find a solution that works for everyone. The reality however is that there is not nearly enough space for everyone, so some people are bound to be less satisfied than others with the agreed-upon solution.

Even if you decided to never actively adapt and change, to remain 'the same as you always were', you would never achieve that. Nothing stands still; all aspects of life and of work life change and will force themselves upon you. That is the nature of life. We are constantly adjusting to change, and it is best to stay open to change rather than fight it. The way research was done thirty years ago and the way it is done now are quite different. Thirty years ago it seemed as though everything about academic research science was more stable; now it seems more like big business that changes strategy every two to three years in order to maximize profits. When the daily stability of research life disappeared, it was difficult to adjust to that. After all, we were brought up on the idea that research needed stability, constancy, in order to thrive. In the 1990s, it was possible to work on one research project for ten years; you could get funding for one topic, e.g. apoptosis and cancer, and you had the time to experiment and to try new research plans. That is harder, if not impossible, nowadays; scientists change their research directions every three or four years in order to follow the trends of funding. Just in the cancer field alone, molecular genetics and genomics were trendy in the 1990s, as was apoptosis and cell death generally, then in the 2000s came cellular senescence, inflammation and its role in cancer, the search for cures for breast and prostate cancers, and the focus on many new and exciting techniques/technologies like microarray gene expression, RNA interference, knockout mice, and CRISPR. Immunotherapy to treat cancers has dominated research science for the past five or so years. So if you want funding and a career in academic science, you follow the current trends. That is what the younger scientists have learned; some of the older ones still fight against this reality.

It was easier to understand your role in a lab setting years ago--as a technician, PhD student, or postdoc. You knew you could rely on a group leader to guide you, and that group leader was often your mentor if you were a PhD student or postdoc. There were not multiple mentors as there are now. Your PhD years were not micromanaged by universities the way they are now. Thirty years ago the idea that you could be the lone scientist in the lab was encouraged; nowadays it is discouraged in favour of working as a team. If you want to work as an individual rather than in a team, if you want to promote and try out your own ideas, you are considered to be a non-team player, and that is anathema at present. The infrastructure of research science has also changed considerably; we share our workdays with IT personnel, administrators, middle-managers, accountants, among others. They were more behind the scenes thirty years ago. You won't get very far these days without the infrastructure of science. If you need lab consumables, you must deal with administrators and accounting people, because you are no longer allowed to order items on your own. You are no longer allowed to download any computer programs on your own; that is taken care of for you by the IT department, and the power they have to deny or approve specific programs can determine what may or may not get done in a research project.  

Academic science is big business now, with huge grant awards going to a small number of recipients. Those recipients often lead large research groups, e.g. centers of excellence. These large groups collaborate at the national and international levels with other large groups. Small research groups (four or five people) without national and international collaborators are not funded and eventually die away. That is the current strategy. If you don't like big business, you won't enjoy academic research science now. If you're young and you know this, the best thing you can do is to adjust your life accordingly--find another arena in which to use your talents and to shine.