Dr. Earl R. Smith II

admin says:

77 Responses to “How do you overcome resistance to change?”
1.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:30 pm e
Johnny Daugaard: I have repeatedly seen the reaction on poor communication of expectations disguised as resistance to change, which many times has led me asking myself whether resistance to change is a reality or just something we speak about.
If for a moment we assume resistance to change is real then we must also assume that immediately prior to this reaction someone has tried to communicate a need for a change – and has failed.
To skip all the other steps and quickly move to the question “How to overcome resistance” then must must accept that one of the most difficult tasks is to mitigate wrong expectations, and you must ask yourself in which of the following areas you missed:
E Equilibrium, a balanced approach
X X-factors, unknown factor beyond control
P Politics
E Experience,
C Communication, information strategy
T Timing, get it right
A Agility, think of it as an agility course
T Trust, to what level can you exercise trust?
I Integrity, You only know yourself to 100%
O Organization, understand it
N Necessity, this is sometimes confused with urgency
M Manipulation
A Assets, everybody can be used for something
N News, This is a tough one
A Abstraction Level, I understand what I see
G Groupies, addicted to chaos or predictability
E Essentials, You have got YOU
M Money, the anticipation of cost
E Exclusivity, we are in this together ???
N Nonsense, we can always mitigate wrong expectations
T Theories …. just read all the books about it !!
So dealing with these people “resisting change” is in my opinion all about communication …. not necessarily to sit down together with them in order to find a soft solution … but to communicate precisely what the expectations are. If this person has very valid reasons to believe that the expectations are not met in the way stipulated, then I believe it is every leader’s responsibility to assess whether the person has a valid point or not.
Of course there is the possibility that the person is simply tired of being employed with the company. Then I believe you should help him out of his agony.
2.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:31 pm e
Stephen Baishya: At a simplistic level, you cannot make them accept the change. You can however get some of them to a place where they choose to accept the change, and you can do this by explaining “what’s in it for them”.
If “what’s in it for them” is something that motivates them intrinsically then they are much more likely to accept the change.
There will be some cases where “what’s in it for them” isn’t actually something they want, and at that point you have to consider whether they are still a fit for the organisation.
3.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pm e
Jim Bishop: I did not see anything in my quick review of the answers giving that I have not heard before. I will add though there are two (or more) different environments that may have very different answers.
1) The corporation that needs change. When I apply your question to this case then the challenge is making the culture one of embracing change.
2) To apply change to a business owner or an individual outside of a community the question becomes much more complex. Tell more of what your goal is and I can define my answer.
4.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:34 pm e
Kumar Gaurav: If you want to overcome the resistance to change .. you need to analyse the root cause of resistance.
Quite often we resist change because we are not “COMFORTABLE” with the proposed state… make sure you take steps to make stake-holder comfortable….
Secondly we might resist change as we do “KNOW” adequately about proposed state… make sure you take steps about communicating about the change
Thirdly we resist change as we might not be “OWNING” the proposed state.. make sure that the stakeholder feels connected and empowered in the new state
Fourthly we might resist change as we might be “LOOSING” the current advantage .. make sure that change is constructed in a such a way that the key stakeholders do not end up loosing but gaining post change..
Community can build on…
5.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:35 pm e
Peter Radsliff: It’s the age-old paradigm of the oak tree vs. the palm tree. When the hurricane comes, the oak tree resists and is uprooted. The palm tree bends flat and bounces back up after the storm is gone — time and again. However, companies need a blend of oak tree and palm tree personalities to be successful. You want accounting, engineering and operations people to be structured and solid as a rock. You want sales, marketing and product development people to be able to weather the storms common to a highly dynamic marketplace. The first step in understanding how to deal with people who are resistant to change is to value and honor how their personalities bring strength to an organization. Once you understand this, the answer becomes clear, the way to get them on-board with change is to spend the time and effort to convince them that the change is necessary and not hat it’s just change for change’s sake. Spending the effort to get key oak tree personnel to buy-into change is an excellent strategy to help move the rest of the organization. Because even though it may be difficult to shift the viewpoint of an oak tree, once you’ve actually done so, others will look to them for the new organizational reality, and everything else will be easier from then on.
6.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm e
Matthew Williamson: Listen to the concerns. Make sure I understand the concerns. Address the concerns by working with the people to ensure they understand the reason for the change and the value it will bring, to them personally and to the organization. Encourage them to participate in the change process.
7.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm e
Howard Halpern: We’re all resistant to change and for good reason. There is value in stability. But sometimes, change is warranted. I recently encountered one client who refused to make positive change. This person is no longer my client. I am fortunate in not having to deal with too many people who refuse to make positive change. I make positive change in my personal life every day. I attract similar people.
I can ask people to change, but I can’t force them to change. I try to set the example and focus on those who are interested in coming along for the ride. I have no time to waste trying to convert people. I have found that it’s virtually impossible. Besides my happiness is not founded on what other people do or refuse to do; it’s founded on what I do.
8.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm e
Joseph Davis: You can overcome resistance to change with patience and multiple exposures to the new idea. The first time they hear about it, a few will embrace it, but many will oppose it. Don’t let the cliques and factions form the first time, just let the issue drop in a pleasant way, with maybe a small amount of progress. Wait a bit and re-introduce the idea. Again, as others have said, listen and don’t threaten. Again, accept a small amount of incremental change. By the third time you expose the idea. It should no longer be as new and threatening, and you should have a much better chance of getting acceptance.
9.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm e
Erich Nielsen: I have to disagree with some of the answerers saying that there is no simple answer to this. There is.
Enter a dialog, and ne sure to take the time both you and the person is question need.
Resistance is actually nothing but a symptom of uncertainty (personal, local or global) and the only way to cure uncertainty is to enter a dialog addressing it.
10.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pm e
Greg Lucas: The way you pose the question, I will make the assumption that the proposed change(s) has been well-communicated to the employees and still there is resistance to that change, even when it makes complete business sense.
I will agree that there tends to be less resistance to change when employees participate in developing the changes. Getting input from line-level employees is a key to having buy-in from your workers. But let’s say that has been done and we are still addressing that handful of employees or perhaps an entire department that just refuse change outright.
In these cases, I think the sledgehammer approach is often the only thing that can be effective. Clearly, if management has done its job and has A) made the correct decision and B) has effectively communicated the need for change, then resistance is only going to hurt the organization.
You can only go so far in trying to ’sell’ the change to employees. Eventually, you have to just say ‘enough’ and push the change through. And you’ll either be forced to drag the resisters along kicking and screaming or eliminate them as the impediment to progress that they are.
And of course there are other ways to reduce the resistance to change – a well-structured, well-documented, well-communicated change plan will go a long way to reducing resistance. Further, if you have competent change leaders who can produce a sweeping victory on a major change plan, then the next change becomes much easier to accomplish of these leaders remain in place (both from an experience perspective and because employees now have faith that these leaders can deliver successful change).
11.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:42 pm e
Glenn Hughes: If we knew the answer to this one we would be very successful and wealthy management consultants!
I believe what has been mentioned here covers the most important aspects of which I think the key areas are candid communication (both ways) and getting stakeholders involved.
We have just been through a major process & organisational change where the project team was made up of our own staff from the ‘coal face’. Approx 20 people were seconded full time for several months to work on improvemements to processes and organisation. There were external consultants experienced in facilitation and the senior management team had final approval on the proposed changes. However at the end of each week the project team came back to the office and shared their ideas with the entire organisation and to get feedback and ideas. This meant that the changes were developed by the staff for the staff and everyone had the opportunity to contribute rather than it being mandated ‘from above’. Now of course not everyone is 100% on board and not everyone was a winner in the new org structure but that too was communicated from the start. We are 6 months into the the new set up and have seen great improvements. We have at least another 12 months of bedding in as I see it and instilling continuous imprvement will be an ongoing challenge but we have made a fantastic start.
Communication and getting the stakeholders involved and engaged are the keys.
Another good point – you cannot change someone else, you can only change yourself. Leading by example, living the changes required, is another good technique to use.
12.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:43 pm e
Jana Molnarova: To disagree with change is normal reaction. You have always to count with it. The way how to cope is the communication.
Your question ss classic literature
You will have ++, +, – or — opinions to your change. Just mange this gaussian curve.
13.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:44 pm e
Oscar Trelles: Make them part of the change. The core idea is to work with everybody involved in defining the different layers on change.
You will find less resistance if changes are defined together instead of being imposed. Of course I am referring to functional changes, changes that will affect people’s daily work, not company policy.
The challenge is in translating corporate changes and new policies into discreet functional items that can be worked on collectively.
14.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:45 pm e
Aaron Held: Often you have to start out by respecting the person and understanding that they are not just resisting for the sake of being in your way. Try to take the time to understand the ‘real’ reason that they are resisting change. Sometimes there is something in that persons history that makes this change a really bad idea to them. If you can find out the real thing then you can have a discussion.
If the person is protecting their turf by keeping things where they understand it then you have to figure out how this person will add value after the change. Sometimes helping support “the enemy” is the best way to institute change.
15.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:46 pm e
Sam Lund: Well one way to deal with “them” is this classical six bullet program – produced by Smith&Wession: Aim to shoot. The more conventional application of it, would be to let everyone know where to aim at and providing them with the means to “shoot”, or perform. Shooting aimlessly never inspires anyone.
16.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:46 pm e
Gary Katz: I agree with those who have said that listening is key. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. That is one of the biggest lessons I took away from reading The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. If you want ot convince people to change, seek first to understand why they are so resistant. Then you can craft your message in a way that best addresses their concern and paints a clear picture of how the change will benefit them.
17.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:47 pm e
Carol McCullagh: I read a fascinating book called Quiet Leadership by David Rock. It’s based on the physical changes needed in the brain to cause lasting change. Essentially it’s based on asking the person questions so that they come up with the answer themselves which promotes new neural pathways. Yes, ans sometimes management/authority needs to order it so that folks get the kickstart that’s needed.
18.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:48 pm e
Tom Field: I’ve always tried to de-mystify change by showing people the positive impacts, how they can influence the change, and I’ve been honest about speedbumps we may hit along the way.
My experience is that the biggest fear is “What’s going to happen to me?,” and if you can try to answer that question up front … half the battle.
19.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm e
Doc Farmer: I’ve had to deal with this for most of my career, both in IT Audit and IT Security. “But we’ve always done it THIS way” is the normal fallback position of those who resist change. There are several ways to approach this.
1 – Be heavy-handed. Tell them they’ve been doing it wrong, and demand that they change their ways to reflect YOUR recommendation. This is also known as the parental change (because I SAID so, that’s why!). As you can guess, this is about as welcome as a skunk at a garden party. Avoid at all costs, unless you enjoy solitude and eventual unemployment.
2 – Educate. Show how the change(s) you recommend will HELP the person understand the risks of staying the old way versus the benefits of going with something different.
3 – Policy. When/if necessary, demonstrate to the person (without recourse to 1. above) that company policies have changed to reflect new business realities, and that the result is they must change as well. Combine with 2 as much as possible.
4 – Regulatory requirements. This one is sort of like 1, but it takes the pressure off of you (directly, at least) and allows you to blame Congress – something we ALL love to do. Again, demonstrate the business case from a corporate standpoint for this change.
5 – New technologies. If the change is due to new software, new hardware, etc., do what you can to stress the efficiencies. Also stress the marketability for the user to learn this, in that it may make them more employable in the future.
6 – Risk. Yes, all change involves risk. However, remaining static ALSO involves risk. Explain that there is NO activity in business that doesn’t involve risk. What is important in business is to BALANCE that risk versus the overall benefits to the company and the individual.
7 – LISTEN! Don’t just dismiss the person’s concerns. They may well be valid. If they are, tell them that you’ll take their concerns to management. It’s up to them to decide the risk/benefit balance, not you or the user. Now, if there’s a better way to address the risk or change, ensure you include that in the communications to management. They don’t just want problems, they want options and solutions that are workable. Just by listening, you’ll gain allies and let them know that their concerns aren’t just being ignored or minimised. Even if their idea is rejected by management, at least they’ll know that their concerns were addressed, and that’s important.
20.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm e
Charlie Bernard: Change is constant – there is no such thing as standing still. I always coach that you can take a hand in it – or be at the effect of it. Generally given a choice people will take the first but they first have to realize they have a choice. My technique for leading group change is to focus most your energy on building a passionate and purposeful case of “WHY” the change is necessary. If you are successful in creating a powerful why – others will involve themselves in the “HOW” and “WHEN” the change occurs. At that point your empowered to help guide the change. Real and permanent change can only occur when those effected see the why (purpose) and then take a helping hand in the how. Otherwise – change is often temporary and/or superficial or in business distructive. Good luck.
21.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:51 pm e
Terrence Seamon: Having been one of “these people” on some occasions, I’ll answer this personally.
I have been resistant to change when:
- I disagree with the change
- I feel that I have not been consulted
- I fear the period of incompetence I’ll have to go through as i adjust to the new way of doing things
22.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm e
Per Persson: If possible, I use them to criticize the planned change, as to improve it. This way they feel less forced and that they contributed to and made the result better.
23.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:53 pm e
Mykel de Willigen: Change might be necessary for ORGANIZATIONAL survival and progress. For a person required change can actually confront this person with the same aspects in an inversed fashion. I’ll explain, if this person needs to learn something new, and they’re not confident enough they’ll be able to are they gonna survive in the organizational rat race? If they can’t handle the amount of change, will they be fired or demoted? Then it does seem to make sense to lessen the amount of change (read; resist change) that way they might have a higher confidence level in reaching the objective.
On progress, nowadays that usually means automation. Not every project automating large parts of processes make people’s job on the workfloor more intresting. Usually it’ll limit their professional freedom to judge, choose and act. So from their perspective progress usually means regression.
(yes, I know, then they should study harder and get a real job ) )
24.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pm e
David Nason: In my experience, if it can ever be done, it is through active listening. Many people labeled resistant to change do not feel their views and concerns are being heard.
In terms of getting management buy-in, listening goes a toward discovering what keeps the person in charge awake at night. You need to understand what those things are, and be able to describe how you can solve them. If you can’t tie the implementation of a particular technology directly to the solving of a particular problem that the leadership of the organization considers crucial, you will not be able to get any traction.
Once you understand how they feel and why, you can better explain:
- purpose for the change – why
- the picture – what it will look and feel like
- the plan – the how
- the part – what you can do to help us get there
25.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pm e
Puneet Kapoor: The only way to overcome resistance to change is by executing the change by exposing first oneself to reality and then others to it, in a structured data driven enviornment (info as understanding rather than info as perception). Ideally, you have to be the change that you wish to implement. True leadership is not just about politics of people but managing the politics of change as an art and science, to understand that laws of nature and laws of science are one and physics & meta physics merge. This Yoga is the yoga of execution for managing change and only leaders irresecpetive of their level of opertaions & scale can understand and mange change. Another important fact is that leaders should never give false hope of ever a time when change would not be there, rather the leaders should guide and execute for a culture where people are exposed to understanding that chage is only perpetual, constant and immortal reality. Finally, unless the leader has an ability to be in a state-of-wisdom for long durations, manaing change can be difficult and painfull exercise. Wisdom is the tool for managing resistabce to change and exposure to realilty.
26.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:56 pm e
Wesley Craft: I recommend reading “Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life” by Spencer Johnson.
27.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm e
Brad Morrison: Proving the value of change can be difficult as you have pointed out, being it process, adopting technology, general new approach, etc.
I have never encountered someone in a position to truly be influential or rational as afraid of change on principle, as the nature of being human dictates change at a fundamental level. Anybody of sober mind has to embrace change on some level and can’t dismiss is summarily on grounds of principle. My interpretation is some individuals have the attitude of “if ain’t broke, don’t fix it” while not realizing that everything, although working, may be broken in a greater capacity measured against how much “better” it could be working if certain measures were taken.
I am going to assume that you don’t want a salesy answer here in terms of using sales methodologies on how to be persuasive or manipulative without substance, bur you are looking for ways to show some value to some specific or general change.
I think the first thing to do is to pick a forum that makes the individual receptive (time, place, setting) to a conversation on that matter that is not pressuring and be clear that by having the conversation about whatever the topic of change may be, that no further action need be taken just because you are talking about it.
Once that has been established, I believe take a tone of genuine advocacy on your topic. There is nothing more compelling than genuine enthusiasm about how to truly help another. If the change will indeed help them, then you are being of service. I recommend finding your most sincere and practical voice and outline the situation from a pros and cons stance. The “ifs and ands” of it. Do your homework, connect the dots. If you are approaching the situation from the point of view of service, you can’t go wrong. You are then simply one person trying to impartially to help another.
Lastly I would encourage any individual to be somewhat detached. Once you have made a point, based in service and outlined the change with facts, documentation, and articulately, it’s out of your hands. Some things and people can’t be changed. Others, if can be persuaded to change something that would be good for them, I believe respond a tone of service and fist full of data.
28.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm e
Ric Godinho: It is my experience that when you fully communicate a strategy all those opposed will resist and hinder it’s implementation. Don’t communicate the full strategy, just enough to reach the nearest goal. The more grandular your roadmap, the better: incremental change is the only way of moving these people along and retaining them. Change, what change?
29.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm e
Phil Sawyer: There is no one answer to this, in my experience. However, it’s worth considering that just as change is necessary for survival and progress, many organisations could use a little stability and consistency once in a while. The point I’m making is that you can sometimes use resistance to change to your advantage.
I tend to use the 10/80/10 rule when there is any organisational change afoot. The top 10% don’t really need any convincing (often they’re th main stakeholders in any case) and the bottom 10% may not come round to your point of view – at least not immediately. Concentrating on that 80% ‘in the middle’, as it were, gets you most benefit immediately. And that often creates enough of a good feeling to get the change-phobics to follow. Never underestimate the power of peer pressure!
That’s not to say I’ll ignore the ‘bottom’ 10%, by the way. What I’ll do here is to carry out some more detailed work to try and get to the bottom of their intransigence. You’d be amazed how much of it can be caused by simple poor communications – they may not realise exactly what’s happening (perhaps no-one bothered to tell them because they’ve been thought of as ‘not worth it’) and therefore they don’t see the valuable part they may have to play in the new structure or process. Often, simply painting that picture (or even more powerfully, giving them the tools to paint some of it themselves) can do the trick. These are often people who’ve been thought of as difficult before; bringing them in on the change itself often opens their eyes.
30.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm e
Suzanne Cross: My best suggestion is for there first to be a clearly articulated vision or picture of the reason for the change or the positive effects expected post change. Once that is in place, then get the individual(s) to see that the change is either the best decision (through lots of information and details) that it has an excellent chance of success (through alignment of key stakeholders that circle the less than energized person and what specifically the individual(s) role in the process is. If you can give them a goal or job that makes them involved and “important” to ther process it can also help. Other authors have great suggestions. After a few attempts to turn a person or persons around it may be time to suggest you can help them find another position outside the company that will make them more comfortable.
31.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:04 pm e
Victoria: IF I am in charge … not hard.
Make 2 columns on a board:
CHANGE / STATUS QUO
List all of the things that need to happen under CHANGE.
List anything that needs to happen under STATUS QUO.
Give long-term goals and time periods under each … since continuous improvement is where the resources will be required, the Status Quo column will sparse with short-term goals to complete and move one into the change column.
LET THEM STAY IN THEIR COMFORT ZONES —
either vote for change and stay; or EXIT …
Growth and advancement for the organization and for the individual are about change: status quo is not.
32.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:01 pm e
James Stuart: Simple – communication. There are different levels and different types of communication that hit at different areas of resistance to change – but it still needs communication.
33.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:02 pm e
Boudewijn Krijger: Have you clarified your expectations with these people regarding the change? Are these people aware that they have this resistance? If not, check with them. If so, ask them what they gain by resisting the change?
34.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:03 pm e
Julie Jaquiss-Collins: There are several great answers below, and I thought I’d add my 2 cents, as a trained professional coach, and as someone who has been through a LOT of change in my career. Remember that, at its core, most resistance is about fear. If you involve people sooner rather than later, and give them lots of chance for input and information, it will be easier. With that in mind, ask open ended questions to get as close as possible to the underlying reasons for the resistance – for example “what do you value about your current situation that you are concerned will be different if we change this?” Second, don’t assume anything – for example, don’t assume “they” know who/what/how/why the change is happening – give lots of information about how the change is coming about and what the benefits will be. Listen to their input and response. In the interest of space, I’ll end here, but I am sure you get the idea – hope this is helpful.
35.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:05 pm e
Glennis Siverson: Yes, some of the responses were interesting, that is for sure. In my experience, resistence is usually due to employees not feeling safe and secure, one of our primary needs. They are just fearful and worried about their well-being. Even good change change be very stressful, and some people are “wired” for it better than others. There isn’t one sure fire “fix” since all people are different, but there certainly are programs and processes that can have a tremendously positive impact during these stressful times.
36.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pm e
Erich Nielsen: Actually everyone have the potential of being a high maintenance individual when the circumstances are right and the individual may experience a degree of uncertainty. This creates a certain behaviour.
High maintenance people usually have more relation oriented behaviour than task oriented. Does that ring a bell?
In plain English: They feel a lot, they (seemingly) empathize a lot, and they connect/relate a lot. Much because of their experience of uncertainty.
One way to rectify this could be to demand them being more task oriented, and constantly ask them for updates regarding the task (not the relation) just focussing on the task.
There may be other solutions, but that will depend on the specific situation they are in. Feel free to contact me if there are any specific situations that need to be sorted out.
37.
August 5th, 2007 at 8:47 pm e
Alasdair Campbell: Perhaps you are assuming that you know best.
I don’t know if you are thinking of colleagues, or staff, or friends, but this problem often faces managers trying to implement a change that will improve profitability, but might affect the way employees do their job.
Here are just a few questions which you could ask yourself when you face resistance to change in such circumstances…
First of all, what exactly is your motivation for a particular change?
Have you asked “these people” what they think needs to change, and how they think they should go about it?
Have you asked them what improvements you could make to help them do their job better?
Do you give them enough interest in their job or in the company to feel the benefits of being successful?
Do they understand why it is important for the company that this change has to be made?
Do they care about the company?
Do they see themselves as employed by “the management”, or are they employed by the organisation?
Do they have enough information?
Do you actually care about them?
You say “Change is necessary for survival and progress.” – Is it necessary for improving their lives?
Have you demonstrated that your decisions can be trusted?
Do these people like you?
Can you show that changes will make improvements?
Are you making the right change, or might they be right?
Is there a Them/Us divide (which makes successful change virtually impossible)?
Can change become part of the culture of the organisation?
From what I have seen, resistance to change signals a need for a more profound change. A change in the attitude of both management and employees. Change becomes easier when ALL employees at every level of an organisation feel they work on the same team, for the same goals, with a respect for each other’s ideas. Are YOU resistant to making THAT kind of change?
I don’t know if that goes anyway towards answering your question… but it’s always something to ponder.
38.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:03 pm e
John Phelan – I have one word: communication. You cannot demand that an employee change. You cannot “market” change to an employee.
What you CAN do is neutralize the emotional criteria with which resistant employees are making value judgments about change, and replace it with an objective criteria that clarifies the organization’s strategic and business rationale and unites it with employee value hierarchies.
39.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:04 pm e
Kevin Lawrence – Most resistance to change is driven at a deep emotional level and very often even those resisting it are unaware as to exactly why they feel the way they do hence the various banalities that we will all be familiar with such as: ‘it was better the way it was’, why should I? what’s in it for me? ‘It’ll mean that I have to do more/less/differently’! I have found that the key to overcoming these issues is often to understand and address a persons core motivational drivers that are often set by the age of 5 yrs old. This allows the ‘change’ to be contextualized in a way that reinforces both ’self worth’ and ’self respect’. Reinforcement of both are required to build a positive emotional attachment to a change in routine, process, behavior etc. The place to look is in Elias H Porters work on Motivational Value Systems. A secondary issue is that in a global work place that is increasingly being demanded by its employees to provide more freedom and autonomy in their work, change is often seen as being imposed rather than something people are encouraged to be actively participating in the development and management of. Tie this to the fact that the three things that as adults we are most ‘afraid’ of when they are articulated are : uncertainty, change and ‘learning’, you have an issue that is very individualistic and demands that corporate leadership fundamentally re-thinks its approach to managing human capital. The traditional approach of throw money and incentives at the problem will only ever have a short term impact and compliance at a superficial level. Another insight to the problem is in the work of Aubrey Daniels on ‘positive reinforcement’ and the relationship between antecedents and consequences on behavior.
40.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:06 pm e
Rick Sanchez – I always like to include everyone when implementing a big change in policy or procedure. Clearly define the problem so that everyone can understand why a change needs to be made. Input from even the lowest person in the change may help find a real solution and it keeps people involved and thinking. Get feedback and refine your changes as needed. Many times I’ve found myself resistant to change using the “if it ain’t broke…” rational only to find that I have not been able to see the forest through the trees.
41.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:07 pm e
Cuong Nguyen – It is human’s nature to resist changes regardless if it is small or big change. However, one faces changes every day. The weather isn’t constant. People must accept changes. There is no other way. In an organization, changes are imminent, as you said, Earl, for survival and progress. To implement changes effectively, we need to communicate the plan clearly and as detailed as possible. People should see that there is no hidden agenda and that the change is good for everyone. The impacts – both positive and negative (if any) must be explained and discussed. Also, get people involved in the implementation of the plan. After all these, any individual who still resists change should be shown the door.
42.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:15 pm e
Wendy Mello – In the professional world, there is a certain point where the business is moving forward. Either you’re with it or you’re not. As a manager, once you’ve provided coaching, tools, and support, I resort to a frank conversation about the resistance. There is probably something at the core causing it– the resistance is usually a symptom of something larger.
Often it is time for a much larger change…a new career or company or retirement. Again, frank conversation, support and the appropriate tools are necessary.
43.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pm e
Jim Bishop – I think both my educated and personal experience say people are resistant to change. All of my life I have been an instrument of change (at least I took that role on). The ability to make people change has had varied results mostly hinged on external issues (but I know my life experience has vastly improved my skills).
In business development (real estate franchise sales) – In Ohio and the midwest areas I covered they are currently out of money. I can get there attention, get them to listen about the direction of the real estate industry. Have them ask for the solution and end up with a $20,000 shortage.
When I was young as a Retail Controller, I was brash and part of management team brought in after a LBO. I was feared though not disliked. The new management motto was along the lines of change the people or change the people. Here there was resistance (not just to me), large turnover and then the first Gulf War and massive layoffs.
As a business owner and/or a financial analyst change is easier to a point. The people that want help, want to change are the ones you keep working with. The others remove themselves and I dont chase to hard (reminder of goals, stay in contact), I am too busy.
Now if I could only change my habits. Lose 30 pounds, work out on a regular basis…..
44.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:17 pm e
Robert De Loght – The first thing to do is explain why the change is required for the company and its survival: changing market conditions, new strategy, growth,… The reason for the change should not be the fact that people did it all wrong for years..
A second thing is explain what the risk people will incur when the changes take place.
Third, a project needs messengers, respected by all, who can explain to their collegues what will be done. They will also provide the input that is required for the definition of the project. And they will serve as antennas to pick up information from within the organisation.
If the project is somewhat adapted, to cope with justified remarks, this should be communicated as soon as possible.
And if people make an effort to contribute to the project, they should be given the credits for it.
45.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:18 pm e
Ross Wirth – Overcoming resistance to change involves two steps: understanding where they are in the change process (Stages of Change) and identifying personal points of leverage for moving them to the next level of change. Most resistance comes from mis-matched Stages of Change (SoC) where the change message does not match the individual’s readiness stage. This naturally occurs when a change leader has been living the change process and has fallen into the paradigm that everyone else understands the problem at the same level of need and direction.
46.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:19 pm e
Richard Vines – Communicate, communicate and communicate and the involve people in the change so that they have investment in the process.
47.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:20 pm e
Jim Graham – Those who are about to undergo change, and are hesitant to commit, tend to be those who are asking several questions which have yet to be answered:
1. What’s the cost to me? (time/money/effort & risk to career)
2. Does the change help me reach my personal goals more quickly?
3. Where’s the proof we need change?
Until these questions are answered positively, expect unease.
Your ‘old hands’ will want to know that the change:
4. has been designed by people who have first tried it the old way, in every way
5. will be implemented by respected and trusted managers with competence in the disciplines/departments to be affected by the change
Ric suggests change should be deployed in manageable, digestable pieces. I agree with this as each milestone can then be recognised and rewarded. But I prefer that key ‘influencers’ (not just managers) are fully briefed – it’s amazing just how much feed back you can get from these people as you progress from one stage to another. They can also support those with doubts and act as internal agents for change. Identifying these people is an important part of the pre-roll out process.
48.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:21 pm e
Tomas Hoffmann – To avoid those kinds of behaviors, you have to make them see the positive side of such a change. Otherwise they will not understand why change is necessary. At the same time you have to make them part of the Change management team. Make them feel they are part of the change, let them express their ideas, let them then get involved with the project. By doing this you will make them feel that the change is also coming form them… and they will fight against all odds to make it real.
49.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:22 pm e
Anamika Mandal – Going by my experience there are 3 key tactics which can be deployed for bringing about change at least in the organizational context:
1) Top Management Sponsorship: which normally isnt much of an issue as rightly put by Phil above since top management is the source of such initiatives
2) Getting the stakeholder buy-in through a mix of carrot & stick strategy perhaps
3) But above all I think creating a “sense of urgency” is what tips the scale and forces people to be willing to move out of their inertia…
50.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:23 pm e
Kasper D. Davidsen – No one here has mentioned John P. Kotter, or just Kotter as I normally refer to him…. I believe he has some of th best insights to this subject!
Just Google Kotter, and everything will show!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kotter
Now, to you question, how to overcome resistance, Kotter says that the first step you must not forget in a change process, is to create a burning platform – create the need for people to change! Just as others here say: Necesity…
People wan’t change if they don’t have to – communication, vision, inclusion etc. is all parts of change management (as Kotters model will show but the first thing you need to create, is the necesity.
Kotter gives an example: A manager presents a financial review with big red figures, and then communicates the vision etc. etc. thereby creating the needed necesity for change. Now, the story will show, that the financial review was a fake! – This was only to create the burning platform that made the change possible…
I find it extremely interesting, but I must admit, I haven’t tried it out…. But references to Kotters change model is abundant – think I post a question to ask if anyone have hands on experience with Kotter
51.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:24 pm e
Gerald Lo – I think that change, in itself, is not always a good thing for its own sake. Sometimes a proposed course need not be different to be the right one.
As you suggest, there are many different responses. Inertia can be manifested simply by labelling a proposed action as “change.”
One method I’ve successfully used to get past this point is to remove the label. The circumstances, for example, are seldom static; doing nothing also entails an element of risk and exposure for the enterprise. Likewise, my team and I are hardly agents of change, we are troubleshooters and agents for solving prospective issues. I try to describe the situation as one in which we’re on the same team, after the same objective.
Kübler-Ross’s mechanistic grief process seems to describe the institutionalized responses well, to me: shock and denial, inward anger, outward anger, depression, acceptance.
Mohandas K Gandhi also seemed to have a very good handle on this sort of thing, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
I like to think that people don’t manifest resistance, for I can hardly claim to represent change or progress. I think people exercise their prerogatives and fulfill part of their responsible duties by actively challenging, which seems to be something I ought to be able to work with. I could be wrong.
52.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:25 pm e
Amit Kak – Fear is the main cause people resist change. Understand what is the cause of the fear and stem that. That helps in most cases. People get defensive or offensive when they have a lot of fear in mind.
You can also see the same in other species. The more fearful they are they more offensive they become.
53.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:26 pm e
Sujatha Das – One of the ways to dealing with this, is to look at what opportunities can be shown to the people who will resist change. Once this is worked out, it is essetial to communicate what is the change that will take place, why is the change happenning (all logical reasons with rationale) and how it is being implemented. Once awareness is compelte and people can visualize the need and opportunity, then the perception of risks get diluted.
It is also good to have some case studies of si,ilar changes taken place and what benefits were reaped. This helps in brining trust into people who resist change.
54.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:26 pm e
Jeff Aquino – A good example is we just hired a new tech for our reliability group to support us. Usually when a new employee joins our company, we train him/her for two weeks. In training, I teach the new employee the necessary procedures on handling a number of projects. There are different projects so that means there are different steps in completing them. Well, this new guy has a background in design technician and has already gained experience in this field. The complicated issue here is that he already has a the mind-set of doing his work his way. Now that a month and a half has passed, he is having trouble in the lab managing his projects. The lesson of this matter is that he did not accept new changes in his work ethics. If he had not been stubborn about his work, then there wouldn’t be any problems. As a result, he has given his two weeks notice.
55.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:27 pm e
Jeffery Shiflett – Experience has taught me a few things related to the presentation of change:
1. change for the sake of change is seldom, if ever, productive or good for any involved.
2. balance is always needed. timing, impact, quantity, etc
3. it is always best to present a “win-win” solution. if you allow others contribute to the solution, or better yet, feel they came up with the very concept of change, you are then in a better position to steer the progression in the direction you see best.
56.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:52 pm e
Scott Lutwyche – I’ve found throughout my career that those who are resistant to change are typically the people in the organisation who form the foundation of the business operations. They are typically the ones who day to day show up and are task focused to continue in their well formed habits that turn the wheels of success. These people are the stayers.
In my experience I’ve found they resist change because they seek comfort in ritual. I’ve found it best to engage them and to explain the nature of the change that is necessary for the organisations future survival or progression. Providing them with a sense of ownership of the situation and to encourage them to choose their place in the new order. To write their own new rituals. Also to provide them with the comfort in the knowledge that they will be supported in this process provided it in alignment with the strategic and tactical objectives.
Of course not all are open to this approach. Some stay, some leave both outcomes are perfect for allowing the growth.
57.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:53 pm e
Kevin Lawrence – The issue is obviously very complex and I have found that there is no single or ‘clean’ solution to the problem.
All the work we do is based on ‘other centric’ leadership. Not dissimilar to the approach of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (but far more pragmatic) which whilst being to my mind slightly too liberal and purist in its approach does have a significant point to make.
The primary driver for us in making any change ‘acceptable’ is to overcome the intellectual / cognitive barriers to change by creating an environment in which people emotionally experience the ‘desired future state’ and then seek to repeat the ‘limbic fix’. We then provide the framework and rationale for why the new state contributes to a more positive personal/social/work environment. The primary developmental premise behind this is that all decisions are emotionally based irregardless of the rationale argument that accompanies them!
58.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:07 am e
Sam Lund – Well, I read many of the answers, and wanted to contribute with an easy to remember and compact perspective to the subject, while perhaps metaphorical one. Much longer variations of the same, you got from the other answers, which were very good by the way. But the theme was the same: every change needs a driving force within the people involved.
59.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:10 am e
Noor Muhammad – Managing change is a process leading towards a cultural shift, change management results can’t be achieved in a day or two but what needs to be taken care during communicating messages of change are:
1. Increase awareness using different means and communication tools over a period of time. This helps understanding change.
2. To be honest in giving a complete and clear message what and how is going to be changed in future.This reduces fear to change.
3. Moreover is the commitment from top and someone from senior management team to be the sponsor of change management.This motivates towards change.
4. A good communication cascade network to be formed. This makes people at various levels taking ownership of change.
Increased awareness, honest messages, commitment from top and ownership at various levels will reduce the resistance to change.
60.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:11 am e
Thomas Camarda – In my experience with these types of individuals, I noticed that fear of change is simply a fear of the unknown. Opposing these individuals will make overcoming this obstacle even harder. A technique I found that works is actually agreeing with their opposition, fear, because to them it is a true emotion. Emotion driven individuals are typically very strong minded, by siding with them, basically you begin winning them over. Now siding with them is the understanding of their fear of the unknown, this is the first step. The second step is to engage in familiarizing them with the subject of the change. Once they are familiar with the subject, they become more and more open to it. This is not a simple task and may take several exposures to the subject of the change. Remember, even the statue of David was once a chunk of marble. It became a work of art one chip at a time. Chip away and you may be surprised what lies underneath all the resistance and opposition.
61.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am e
Mark Herschberg – “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries … and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.”
– Niccolo Machiavelli
I deal with change in every job, as I’m brought in to either launch something new or to fix something broken. The fundamental challenge is goal alignment. Everyone has self-interest. Keep in mind that I’m a believer in Theory Y (Douglas McGregor) but whichever view you take, everyone has a personal goal and incentive. To get someone to change you need to convince them that it is in their interest to adopt the change. It may be personal goals, it may be job improvement, career satisfaction/advancement, HR based structural incentive, or even a desire for peer acceptance, just to name a few. The approach will vary somewhat depending on the magnitude of the change and the number of people involved.
62.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:14 am e
Missy White – I find William bridges work helpful for this topic.
Change is an external and specific event (getting married, getting a new job, being mandated a new job focus, etc). Transition is the internal and on-going adjustment to change.
Regardless of whether or not the change is ultimately in your best interest (i.e. getting married), all changes create transitions and all– and I mean ALL– transitions begin with an ending, or a loss. Getting married means an end to complete independence, keeping the house as you want it, taking the vacations you want, etc.
Those who are resistant to change are usually struggling with the ending. A new job or new organizational focus or any other change at work creates a transition in which a loss of something is experienced– familiarity, competence, routine, personal definition, you name it.
If you want someone to handle change and the inherent transition better, your best bet is to focus on assisting him/her accept loss in a healthy way. S/he is in a mourning process. You can help by finding ways to help him/her express the specifics of loss, validate them, and give space to process the emotions. The worst thing you can do is focus only on the ‘golden egg of the future’ and rush the ‘endings’ process.
If you think “I don’t have time for this” please rethink your perspective. It’s better to pay now with a few hours than to pay later with lots of hours. There’s a great saying in Chilean Spanish that translates to: ‘When you are in a hurry, you will loose your time”
63.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:15 am e
Rick Grashel – I don’t think that overcoming resistance to change is an answer. Rather, predicting and having an appropriate responding to such resistance is more appropriate.
I have implemented several process changes over the course of my career. I feel that applying the Kubler-Ross model (five stages of catastrophic news) to pending changes is excellent. Before implementing change, sit down and plan the reaction. Who will enter denial first? How will they react? What angry reactions will happen… and by whom? What possible bargaining might occur… and by whom?
In my opinion, a good manager won’t resist these phases. A good manager will work hard to ensure that everyone moves through the first phase (denial) all the way through until acceptance. All of this (hopefully) with minimal impact to the organization and the rest of the team.
64.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:07 pm e
Michele Isernia – One of the key factors is what I call “the invisible handgun”.
All people in management (or any other position of power) carry an invisible handgun. It is invisible to him/her but it is very visible to all people at “lower levels”.
Because of this small but very important issue, any person in a position of power NEVER gets the whole truth from the people “below”.
Imagining yourself having a weapon in your hands when you speak to people at lower “power levels” than you, may help you realize what is actually happening that you do not see.
This lack of complete and honest feedback makes leadership, and in particular, leadership towards change, a very difficult task.
This is the reason why I wonder how much is luck and coincidence a factor in the success or failure for change efforts.
This is why I believe that major change cannot be really accomplished by a lone leader, but it requires a very solid team of people that trust each other implicitly, are not afraid of each other and of speaking up.
It may even make sense to “infiltrate” the ranks all the way to the lower level with change agents, similar to the task of commandos in times of war.
At the same time it is a real value the fact that the majority of people are naturally against change as they provide the stability required for anything to exist and function.
I have actually found management to be much more resistant to change than the lower levels of the organization, as many have been promoted because they are “good soldiers” able to defend the status quo.
As a natural innovator and a change-agent myself I have learned to truly appreciate the “resistance to change” and I am learning more and more to listen to the push-backs, because, when you get them, in spite of the handgun you are carrying, it is a true gift !
65.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm e
Steve Early – Why people resist change:
1) They are afraid of what it will mean to them personally; feel threatened, afraid they won’t measure up, afraid that weaknesses will be exposed
2) Concerns about loss of relationships with co-workers (social aspects of the job impacted by potential ’shuffling of the deck’)
3) To some; they might have a pretty good situation. Change might mean they’ll actually have to work – can’t hide – can’t avoid responsibility
Best advice I can give on change is:
1) Senior management has to be involved and visible – not just lip-service.
2) Paint a picture of what happens to the company and the employees if things don’t change. Goal: Make them understand the need. If necessary, make them more afraid of things staying like they are than taking the steps to change.
3) Paint a picture of what needs to change and how that will help the company and be good for everyone. Goal: Make them feel better about the positive aspects of change to further distance their emotions from the status quo.
4) Don’t screw around. If you’re going to change, then change. If you dabble at a little change here and a little change there, employees will start to think you don’t really mean it.
5) Set some short term objectives, and have management be visible in tracking their progress. Announce their timely completion or your praise in the effort made (if it was) along with your great dissapointment that the goal was not met and how critical it is that the task be completed ASAP.
6) Keep management visible and actively engaged until it is clear that change has taken on a life of its own.
A book a read once (can’t remember which one) told the story of how a company needed to move in a new direction. They came up with goals, objectives, etc. Flew 6 executives down on the company jet to meet with the plant people and spent all day getting them all geared up. A month or so later something happened that made it necessary for them to kill the project.
They sent one person on the company jet to explain to people why the project was being shelved and telling them to go back to doing things the way they did before. It took them six months to get the people in the plant to change back. The six executives that went down originally did a great job of selling them on the future that sending one executive to tell them to stop didn’t work. As I recall they had to load up the company jet with everybody again to convince the plant folks that they were serious.
Goes to show the importance of management involvement in my opinion.
66.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm e
Jay Hamilton-Roth – People attempt to minimize their pain. If the pain of change is clearly less than the pain of staying put, then people will change. The key is to clearly show the pain amounts (and have the people confirm them).
67.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:40 am e
Claudia Del Giudice – “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”
Managing change is tough and there is little agreement on what factors most influence transformation initiatives.
Different executives, different answers.
I suggest a nice book on this: The Hard Side of Change Management
68.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am e
Jeffrey Marlowe – My suggestion is to share information. Employees and team members who are actively involved and aware of the need for change – will better embrace it.
69.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:43 am e
Chris Robinson – In terms of dealing with the people you could
(a) ignore them and steam roller it through
(b) engage with them and find out why they are resistant
(c) stop the change going ahead until every is 100% happy (v. unlikely)
(d) explain the current thinking, the possible solutions, the desired solution and how “we” all get there.
And it is this last option that is the key to change resistance – how you approach the situation in the first place, i.e. have you merely stated there will be a change, or have you explained why.
Recently, one of the organisations i am involved with, non-business, doubled it’s subscriptions rate. Had they done this without explanation, then there would have been widescale rejection and a loss of membership. Instead they outlined their plans and how the members would see the benefit of the new things they wanted to implement within a 6-12 month timescale, and it wasn’t until the very end that they said, “and by the way, we will need to double your subs rate for this”. Whilst the organisation has suffered attrition due to this of around 5%, the initial business plan showed that a flat out message of double money up front, without explanation would have resulted in a 25-30% attrtion.
The 5% is evident that no matter how much you sugar coat it or express why the change is needed, people will always reject the change.
This is when you need to ask yourself, if you have a hard core of people who reject the change, and possibly every change before that, are they right for your business in the first place – do you really want them on board.
But remember, quite often people who are deemed resistant to change are not really, but they want to understand why the change is required – and is it really a change or just a different way of doing things.
Then again, how many companies out there would introduce a “change” overnight, and how many would phase it in.
Change is inevitable, we all know that – but in introducing change, we need to make sure the message we are going to the masses with is clear, concise and shows the benefits, before we hit the negatives.
70.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:44 am e
Maheshwari Kapoor – There could be different ways of dealing with such people.
Education: Educate them on why the change is necessary and help them understand the necessity and benefits of change.
Involvement: Involve them in any activity related to this change. Let them get their hands dirty and justify their involvement as well as the need to change.
Facilitate: Help them set goals for their change project and work with them so they achieve their goals.
Manipulate: This helps in short term. Manipulate and control their environment.
Push / Pull: If nothing works, push / pull principle is always there. Either show a carrot or a stick. Whatever works is best.
71.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am e
John Macrina – I look for key people resistant to change early in the change process. I empathize with them trying to understand what would cause their fear of change. Then I invest time discussing the potential change using their perspective and create a personal win with the change. If I can get progress with 2 or 3 key resisters early, then I put them on the deployment team and even consider adding one to the core team. I use their perspectives to re-formulate the message to the masses to include more personal wins. If I cannot get buy-in, I simply request their support or loyalty or patience based on my past experience or reputation. I use a similar rule to Phil Sawyer’s 10/80/10 but concentrate on those who are key influencer’s in each category.
72.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am e
Altug Ornek – It is my experience that change is inevitable so/as resistance. When you are on planning process of the change, it is wise to plan a strategy to overcome resistance.
While planning and actually executing this strategy, it is wise to accept the followings;
* If there is a change, there is and always will be resistance,
* Resistance and/or “them” is not the enemy, unless they resist for the sake of resisting,
* If you do not change, do not expect others do,
* Resistance can be caused from different sources, you have to find out those sources (Sometimes they will surprise you),
Finding out the sources is not an easy task to achieve unless you aware of the simple theory behind it. Cognitive Dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that m