Resistance: understanding a phenomena that
is natural to all of us
“The normal reaction to change is resistance.”
You may have heard this statement many times before, but do we really
know if it is true, and how this simple statement can impact our change
management work? Do we really believe that resistance is normal, or are
we like many business leaders who are surprised by, and disappointed
with, employees who resist change?
A common mistake made by many
business leaders is to assume that by building
Awareness of the need for
change, they have also created a Desire
to engage in that change. The
assumption is that one automatically follows the other. Some managers
may fall into the trap: If I design a "really good” solution to a
business problem, my employees will naturally embrace that solution. In
both cases, resistance from employees takes these managers
by surprise and they find themselves unprepared to manage that resistance.
For example
A financial services group wanted to consolidate its call centers
across several divisions as a cost-savings initiative. A consultant was
hired to design the best solution and implement the change. The project
just started when rumors began to spread through several departments:
“This organizational change is not good for the company.” Supervisors
and key managers were resisting the change. In some cases they would not
show up for design reviews or they would simply skip key decision-making
meetings. Information requested by the consultant was withheld or
half-complete.
At breaks and around the coffee pot, employees
complained about the consolidation effort. Both employees and managers
were distracted from their day-to-day work and productivity suffered.
Key managers were rumored to quit if the change was implemented.
After several months of difficulties and delays, the consultants
finally declared the call center consolidation in jeopardy. With the
project at a stand-still, the executive sponsor requested an emergency
briefing with his leadership team. They quickly identified a department
head in one of the call centers as the focal point for the resistance.
Arguments against the consolidation – initiated by this manager – were
spreading throughout the ranks. It turned out that his supervisors were
the same people who were resisting the change and presumably threatening
to leave the organization. The only recourse at this point was
reassignment or termination of this department head. However, both
options would have negative fall-out for the company and the affected
manager. The executive sponsor was faced with a stalled project and a
potentially lose-lose decision for a long-tenured manager.
Resistance to
the change was spreading like wildfire.
This executive sponsor is not the first or last business leader to be
taken by surprise when employees resist change. The underlying principle
at work here, as with many changes, is recognizing that resistance is
normal, and that our success with change is dependent on
how we plan
for, recognize and manage resistance.
So why do employees resist change?
From personal experience, we all know that change creates
anxiety and
fear. The current state has
tremendous holding power, and the possibility of losing what we have
grown accustom to (and comfortable with) creates worry and anxiety. For
many employees, the future state of workplace changes is often unknown
or ill-defined, and this uncertainly creates fear about what lies ahead.
These physical and emotional reactions are powerful enough
by themselves
to
create resistance to change. It is likely that each of us have
experienced these reactions in our own lives, whether at work or at
home. But there is more to resistance
than our emotional response. From a change management perspective, we
must examine the other drivers that
influence an employee’s resistance to change.
A good place to start is the nature of the change itself and how this
change is impacting the employee:
-
“Were they involved with designing the change?”
-
“Do they know why the
change is being made?”
-
“Do they believe that the reasons for making the
change are valid?”
-
“Do they trust the ‘senders’ of the change messages
within the organization?”
-
“How will the change impact them and their
personal situation?”
2009 © Prosci and Bill igliano
You can quickly see that on top of the emotional
reactions to change, resistance has other influencing factors, not the
least of which is an employee’s personal situation. This includes all
aspects of a person’s life including family status, mobility (are they
in a position to be flexible in terms of where they live?), financial
security, age, health, career aspirations (are they where they expected
to be at this point in their life?), relationships at home and at work,
educational background, upcoming personal events and past success in
this work environment (promotions, recognition, compensation). For
example, a person’s financial situation or health may cause them to make
choices related to a change that on the surface do not appear logical,
but when understood make perfect sense. Similarly, a change in a
person’s relationship with a spouse or significant other can cause a
fundamental shift in what is important to that person.
To make this personal angle a bit more complex, we should also
recognize that an employee’s internal value system
and “view of self”
also contributes to whether or not he or she will resist a particular
change. Without exploring the psychology of human behavior in depth
here, we can acknowledge that what motivates a person is unique to that
person. We each “march to a different drummer” and a given change may or
may not align with where we envision ourselves in the future. Each of us
also has an innate ability to assess whether or not we could be
successful in the “future state” should we decide to move forward. This
“probability of success” plays yet another role in our decision to
support or to resist a change.
Now add the environment or context
within which the change is occurring. Employees will consider the
organization’s success of past changes, how much change is already going
on, and the reinforcements or rewards that were part of past change. In
short, the organization’s culture and history directly impact a person’s
resistance to new changes. If a company has a history of starting
changes and not following through, or if they have a track record of
allowing some groups to opt out of a change, then these past events
weigh heavily on the willingness of an employee to engage in a new
change.
Resistance is a normal and natural reaction
You can begin to appreciate why resistance to change is a
normal and natural reaction to change. Even when individuals can align a
change with their own self-interest and belief system, the uncertainty
of success and fear of the unknown can block change and create
resistance. The question, therefore, is not if we will encounter
resistance to change, but rather how we support our employees
through
the change process and manage that resistance. We must, at some point,
ask the question: How much resistance might we avoid if we would apply
change management effectively?
In the example with the call center
consolidation project, rather than simply designing a “great” solution
to the call center structure and beginning implementation, a proactive
change management program could have been put in place to engage and
support employees through the transition. Rather than waiting for
resistance to happen, or being taken by surprise when key managers
resisted the change, the leadership and project team could have assumed
that resistance to change is a normal and natural phenomenon. If they
had started with this as a basic tenet of change, then their actions and
planning would have prevented the project failure and unfortunate
consequence to the resistant department head.
What is the key message for you?
Consider this basic thought process: If resistance to change is a
normal and natural reaction, then resistance should be
expected. If
resistance is expected, then our planning activities
should be designed
to mitigate that resistance. If our change management strategies and
plans are designed to prevent and manage resistance, then we are not
surprised by or unprepared for resistance when it happens.
We can manage
resistance early and at its source. In many cases we can prevent
resistance or greatly reduce it. We also can stop treating resistance as
a “problem employee” or a trouble area. We can understand the many
factors that drive resistance, and manage them accordingly, both
professionally and with respect for the employees going through change.
If we do a really good job at managing change, we will find that change
management can shift from preventing and managing resistance to engaging
employees and building enthusiasm and passion around the change.
The three critical and relevant lessons for change management practitioners
related to employee resistance are:
-
Do not react to
resistance with surprise; expect it and plan for it. Make resistance
management a core element of your change management plans and engage
employees in the change process as early as possible.
-
Be
patient with individuals as they work their way through the change
process. Enable business leaders and managers to become effective change
leaders and teach them how to manage resistance effectively. At the same
time, be watchful for persistent and prolonged resistance from managers
or business leaders. This level of resistance is a sign of a weak
sponsor coalition and can threaten a project and compromise your
success.
-
Assess resistance not only from an individual perspective,
but also based on the larger organizational context, including culture,
history and how much other change is going on within that person’s team
or department. Change is equally about the individual as it is the
community to which they belong.
Coming up next: Principle 3 - Authority for change
Read
Module 1 -
The psychology of change overview
Read
Module 2 -
Senders and receivers
|
