Diversity in Change Styles: Resilience in the Workforce

By Janine Victor Talent Development Change Management, Hardiness and Resilience, Talent Acquisition, Talent Development 0 Comments

The future of work will not entirely mirror what it is today. Accelerated changes are reshaping businesses far and wide, influencing how organizations function and exist. From workplace goals and values to processes and operations, change is not only unstoppable, but its consequences impact both businesses and their people.

Key takeaways:

Individuals exhibit various approaches to change. Each style has its own characteristics and preferences for handling change, which can impact the effectiveness of change initiatives.
Resilience, a trait that can be developed and strengthened, is a key factor in navigating change. Intrigued by this, our experienced research team at MHS set out to investigate whether specific change style preferences influence an individual’s resilience level.
Results from our research show that resilience is not limited to any specific change style. We encourage organizations to value diverse approaches to change and focus on building resilience across their workforce.

The perception of change

Change is sometimes perceived as disruptive or uncomfortable, resulting in negative outcomes. Ineffective change initiatives¹, elevated turnover intention², and inadequate performance³ are just a few consequences of negative attitudes demonstrated by employees towards change. While change is uneasy for some, not everyone views rapid advancements negatively. PwC’s most recent Global Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey 2024 captures positive perceptions of workplace change. Their data showed that a number of employees viewed change as an opportunity to welcome new ways of performing work, while others expressed enthusiasm about skills development.

Reactions towards workplace change can vary significantly, and recognizing how people respond to it is critical for building effective transformation strategies. An individual’s approach to change plays a significant role in shaping their reactions to it³. Some people embrace it as an opportunity for growth, innovation, and adaptability, while others may view it with skepticism or doubt, preferring what is known. These different attitudes toward change can greatly impact the effectiveness of change initiatives and how well or how quickly an organization navigates through change.

Understanding change style preferences with the Change Style Indicator^®

Individuals exhibit various approaches to change, often taking on a specific preference. At MHS, change style preferences are measured using the Change Style Indicator^®. These preferences typically follow one of three styles:

Conservers are characterized by their preference for structure and certainty. They tend to favor gradual change rather than dramatic shifts. Consider a firm implementing a new software platform. A Conserver might advocate for incremental implementation, ample employee training, and close monitoring of progress, preferring to hear the plan and all the details in advance.
Originators exhibit spontaneity and a preference for bold transformations. They thrive on risk and uncertainty, embracing radical or rapid change. In the scenario of implementing a new software platform, an Originator may challenge existing solutions and opt for innovative and creative ones instead. They tend to embrace exploration of unconventional approaches.
Pragmatists serve as a bridge between conserver and originator change styles. They are recognized for being objective and flexible. Pragmatists maintain a balanced approach and consider various aspects of change before acting. Drawing on the example of implementing a new software platform, Pragmatists may carefully analyze different ways of execution while working closely with co-workers and seeking input from them. They might also select solutions that yield noticeable improvements, suiting their approach to change to the given context.

Is there a connection between one’s approach to change and their level of resilience?

It is perhaps unsurprising that Originators may be viewed as more resilient given their distinct approach to change. Their preference for ambiguous conditions allows them to flourish in volatile situations. Originators tend to be open to change, embrace risk, and advocate for radical shifts—all of which contribute to resilience. This style may strengthen the idea that Originators hold a high level of this quality. In contrast, due to their preference for stability, limited flexibility, and lower risk tolerance, Conservers may be viewed as more resistant to change and uneasy at handling it. Research has shown that routine seeking, reluctance to lose control, cognitive rigidity, and preferences for low levels of stimulation and novelty are a few of the factors that contribute to change resistence⁴.

Resilience allows one to manage stressful situations and rebound from challenges⁵. Many people believe resilience is about being upbeat, maintaining a positive attitude, and recovering from setbacks without even breaking a sweat. There often is a perception that highly resilient people shine through any turbulent situation. While optimistic thinking and positive self-talk can be helpful coping tools, experiencing negative emotions and learning from failure are essential parts of building resilience when facing challenges.

Another characteristic of resilience is that it can be learned, honed, and cultivated over time⁶. Setbacks and tough situations tend to shape resilience and develop hardiness in the face of challenges. Exposure to adversity and having to solve tough problems presents unique opportunities that contribute to our coping and rebounding capabilities. Resilience and hardiness are also crafted through reflecting on past wins and defeating prior obstacles. Acknowledging past successes can help boost one’s confidence in their capabilities and can consequently serve as a catalyst for building resilience. Moreover, each hurdle conquered can further build resilience by strengthening one’s ability to handle future adversity. Awareness of past experiences, whether positive or negative, can provide us with invaluable insights by making more informed decisions and dodging prior mistakes.

Measuring resilience with the Hardiness Resilience Gauge^® (HRG™)

At MHS, we use the Hardiness Resilience Gauge^® (HRG™) to measure an individual’s ability to cope with stress. The HRG evaluates resilience by focusing on levels of hardiness which include three key qualities: challenge, control, and commitment.

Challenge refers to the cognitive (thinking) component of hardiness. It reflects how an individual perceives change and new situations. Challenge further assesses whether an individual views change as an opportunity for growth and learning.
Control deals with the emotional (feeling) aspect of hardiness. It assesses an individual’s sense of self-efficacy and belief in their ability to influence events and outcomes in their life.
Commitment represents an element of hardiness that focuses on behavior (acting). It evaluates one’s level of engagement and meaningfulness in activities and life.

The HRG provides test-takers with a comprehensive view of hardiness and resilience, lending itself to greater self-understanding and enhanced self-management.

Given that change style preferences and resilience share some similarities and tend to be discussed together in organizational contexts, it was of interest to us to explore the practical relationship between these important characteristics. As previously outlined, there is a belief that Originators (who prefer radical changes) are more resilient, while Conservers (who favor stability and familiarity) are more resistant to change. We, therefore, wanted to investigate whether these beliefs really do hold true.

Exploring the link between change style preferences and resilience: insights from MHS research

At MHS, we conducted research to examine the relationship between change style preferences and resilience, utilizing the Change Style Indicator and HRG. As a leading developer of psychometric assessments, the Change Style Indicator and HRG are scientifically rigorous tools that demonstrate excellent reliability and validity. Both assessments can be effective measures in a workplace coaching situation.

To explore the relationship between change style preferences and resilience, data were collected from 1,481 individuals who completed the Change Style Indicator and HRG.
Scores on these two measures were compared using a correlation. Correlations are useful in determining how two concepts are related in terms of strength and direction. Values range from -1 to 0 to +1. Correlations of +1 indicate a strong positive association (as one variable increases, so does the other), whereas correlations of -1 signify strong negative relationships (as one variable increases, the other will decrease). A correlation of 0 means that two concepts share no relationship.
Results revealed that the link between change style preferences and resilience were very weak (r_c = .07), showing us that there is a very, very small or almost non-existent relationship between the two concepts.

What do these findings mean for organizations and their people?

Resilience is not synonymous with an Originator approach to change. While it might seem natural to assume that both resilience and approaches to change are related, it’s surprising and interesting to realize that they most likely aren’t. Each change style preference can demonstrate resilience in unique ways. Change styles are merely preferences and not indicators of effectiveness or capacity for managing change. The lack of relationship is positive as it means that organizations should encourage diverse approaches to change and focus on developing resilience to ensure effective change initiatives.

Originators might exhibit resilience by welcoming uncertainty and thriving in disruptive conditions. Their level of hardiness is possibly fueled more by their optimism and enthusiasm for novelty and new challenges.
Conservers, on the other end of the continuum, might show resilience by maintaining steadiness and handling gradual and predictable changes with ease. They might be hardier in the face of challenges as they’re often skilled at anticipating problems, digging into details, and recognizing and continuing with what had worked well in the past.
Pragmatists might demonstrate resilience by maintaining flexible thinking, encouraging team collaboration or focusing on practical solutions.

Organizations that recognize and value all approaches to change are more capable of supporting an adaptable and resilient workforce. This strategy means that companies should become more effective at dealing with and handling current and future transformations. While resilience helps individuals adjust to change and recover from challenges, change style preferences guide how individuals approach change.

The core message from this research is that organizations could benefit from not only acknowledging change style diversity but also by building resilience across their workforce. Both concepts are especially essential for developing effective change management strategies, and this research supports the notion that hardiness and resilience are not restricted to any group. Instead, it can be developed and fostered, regardless of one’s preferred change style. Organizations could benefit from such findings by empowering employees to thrive during times of transformation.

Have questions? Get in touch with a member of our team.

References

¹Hubbart, J. A. (2023). Organizational change: The challenge of change aversion. Adm. Sci., 13, 162.

²Srivastava, S., & Agrawal, S. (2020). Resistance to change and turnover intention: a moderated mediation model of burnout and perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1431–1447. 10.1108/JOCM-02-2020-0063

³Khaw, K. W., Alnoor, A., Al-Abrrow, H., Tiberius, V., Ganesan, Y., & Atshan, N. A. (2022). Reactions toward organizational change: A systematic literature review. Current Psychology, 42, 19137-19160.

⁴Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680

⁵Bryan, C., O’Shea, D., & MacIntyre, T. (2019). Stressing the relevance of resilience: A systematic review of resilience across the domains of sport and work. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 70–111.

⁶Baker, F. R. L., Baker, K. L., & Burrell, J. (2021). Introducing the skills‐based model of personal resilience: Drawing on content and process factors to build resilience in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 458–481.