A Different Perspective to the Change Curve

One criticism of the traditional change curve is that it frames people as moving through the stages of grief, or a sequence of emotions that happen to them. That narrow viewpoint can suggest that resistance, acceptance, and commitment are stages to endure rather than choices people make as they find meaning and value in the change.

What if we shifted the conversation away from "Where are they emotionally?" and toward:

"How invested are they in helping this change succeed?" Certain experiences influence the individuals’ perception of a change and thus it affects their willingness to actually commit.

That’s when the Commitment Curve comes into play. Instead of measuring and managing emotional reactions, the curve gives the opportunity to measure the evolution of ownership and engagement. The traditional Change Curve solves for "How do we help people move through a change?" Whereas the Commitment Curve solves for "How do we help people progressively invest in the future state?"

This concept addresses the gap between "getting people to do it" for adoption compliance and "getting people to want it" which is the commitment that sustains the future state. It explores the possibility of transforming change from passive acceptance to active (conscious) support.

From the bottom up, the model is something like this:

Support

   ▲

Ownership

   ▲

Participation

   ▲

Exploration

   ▲

Understanding

   ▲

Awareness

Commitment Curve is intentionally upward. The focus is on increasing levels of investment. Commitment isn't something that appears after training; it starts forming long before people enter the classroom. Change succeeds when people stop seeing it as “an initiative” and begin seeing it as “our way of working.”

Concept written by: Isabel Hagan