Summary of presentation from Erin Auer with Physician’s Computer Company (PCC) at the 2026 PMI Conference
Erin Auer from PCC explored how organizations can evolve from treating change as an occasional event to embedding change readiness as a cultural baseline. Erin argues that while traditional change management toolkits are useful, they become insufficient in a world of constant updates, staffing shifts, and payer demands. Leaders burn out when they act as emotional shock absorbers for every transition. The central thesis: prioritize structural clarity, role alignment, and disciplined feedback over comfort and consensus, so teams build resilience, adapt continuously, and share ownership of results.
Erin’s presentation contrasts change management (a project-based toolkit) with change readiness (an organizational baseline). Humans prefer predictability, so the status quo often feels “fine,” which tempts leaders to shield teams from discomfort. That protection hides risk and delays necessary learning. When change is forced later—such as retiring legacy tools—fear, friction, and crisis spike. The goal is not bribing for buy-in but setting expectations for professional engagement: “Yes, and…” thinking that surfaces risks with proposed actions to mitigate them.
Several models of change are referenced, from orderly frameworks (Awareness–Desire–Knowledge–Ability–Reinforcement) to more human arcs (objection, “Mount Hate,” acceptance, new normal). Effective change leadership emphasizes clarity about what is and isn’t changing, context for the “why,” and support that closes skills gaps without slipping into emotional over functioning. Psychological safety is defined as clarity on accountability and space to experiment—not a license for venting or relitigating decisions already made.
A core barrier to adoption is misalignment: the wrong people in the wrong seats. Some resistance is emotional, but some is structural—no amount of motivation fixes a capacity or skill mismatch. Leaders should assess “skill vs. will vs. capacity” (or “gets it, wants it, capacity”) and realign roles accordingly. Define decision rights explicitly—tools like a RACI chart help teams understand who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Clarity reduces anxiety more than consensus, and the people closest to the work should shape workflows while leadership enforces boundaries and enables training.
The change management toolkit should include: inviting the right stakeholders, defining the problem and success metrics, establishing roles and timelines, identifying training needs, setting feedback loops that improve execution (not reverse decisions), and planning contingencies. Communication should be concise, targeted, and rhythmic. Feedback must be constructive: “What’s getting in the way?” and “What have you tried?” Teams should bring solutions, not just problems. Leaders should stop rescuing, let appropriate discomfort build team “muscle,” and pivot only when structured data shows a path that better serves patients and operations.
Practical takeaways:
- Define and communicate three anchors for every change: clarity (what is/isn’t changing), context (why), and support (skills, resources, timelines).
- Use role alignment rigor (e.g., RACI; assess skill, will, capacity) to prevent structural resistance that training alone can’t fix.
- Standardize feedback loops to improve execution, not relitigate decisions; coach teams to bring solutions with their concerns.
- Involve people closest to the work; set success metrics, training plans, and a realistic transition timeline with contingency options.
- Shift from emotional buffering to structural enablement: stop rescuing, set boundaries, and let teams build adaptability through manageable, incremental changes.