Expecting and Respecting Resistance

"The only constant is Change."

"Things are Changing today faster than they’ve ever changed before."

"The more things Change, the more they stay the same."

That’s a short, and pretty useless, collection of clichés regarding a topic we struggle with on a daily basis, especially if our focus is the future. You’d think we’d be able to come up with ‘wisdom’ more capable of describing a process, which has such a huge impact on our lives. It’s almost as if these sayings are an admission of defeat in the face of something we’re powerless to control.

“Change” is really a rather simple process. At least it’s simple to describe. It occurs whenever we replace the old with the new. If we’re normal, average people, and most of us fall into that category, then it should not surprise us, to discover we’re reluctant to leave the familiar behind; that we are all suspicious about the unfamiliar; that we are naturally concerned about how we will get from the old to the new, especially if it involves learning and any risk of failure.

In a nutshell, that’s what Change is all about, traveling from the old to the new. To wax poetic for a moment, Change is about leaving yesterday behind in exchange for a new tomorrow. Then why, if it’s so simple to describe, is it so incredibly difficult to achieve?

The difficulty of Change surrounds us. Many corporate mergers fail, not because there is a lack of economic reasons for success, but because the two corporate ‘cultures’ resist merging into a single cohesive whole. When faced with a new technology, some people would rather continue to struggle with old, outdated tools than adopt something which even they agree, would make their life easier. Why? Why is Change sometimes, so incredibly difficult to achieve? Are there techniques, strategies, or belief systems which will make Change more acceptable?

These are important questions, because while the opening clichés are trite and worn-out, they do hold at least a modicum of truth. Change is happening faster and faster, and whatever the limit of Toffler’s “biological capacity for Change” is, we are fast approaching it.

To some, the problem is not that we’re faced with a maelstrom of Change, but that we resist it. According to them, “Those who resist Change are the problem.” The “proper” way to behave, is to always go with the flow and don’t complain, don’t resist, just shut up, toe the line and get with the program.

This type of reasoning is not uncommon. For example, if you dislike snakes, you might decide the answer to your problem is to get rid of all snakes. It’s only after you’ve solved your first problem, that you come face to face with an even larger one, a plague of rats. It’s only then you realize the snakes were a solution to a problem you didn’t even know existed. That a certain number of snakes are necessary to manage the rat population.

If we strive to eradicate all resistance to Change, then we’re ignoring the legitimate function of ‘resistance’. ‘Resistance’, to paraphrase Sir ArthurEddington’s quote, ‘is what keeps everything from happening at once.’

Before we attempt to eradicate resistance to Change, we must first understand why it exists.

If your response is “I don’t care why they’re resisting, I just want them to Change!” Then you might as well stop reading and start building rat traps, there’s nothing here for you. On the other hand, if you suspect resistance has a legitimate function because you yourself sometimes resist Change, even if you only resist what you consider to be stupid Change, then read on, you’re halfway there.

Resistance is simply, a very effective, very powerful, very useful, survival strategy.

Imagine a hunter in the distant past who hunted saber toothed kitty cats with a very long, heavy and very sharp spear. Imagine you present your imaginary hunter with a bow and arrow. I think you’d agree the hunter would be well advised to get some strong proof that this flimsy strip of wood, strung with a bit of twisted hair and a teeny tiny toy like spear with feathers on the end, was more effective than his large, heavy, sturdy, dangerous and well tested, projectile.

It does not matter that YOU know the bow and arrow will work, the hunter must know that. It’s his life on the line, not yours. The hunter must also endure the learning period necessary to become proficient with the bow. During this learning period his ability to hunt will diminish and the threat to his life, and that of his clan, will increase.

“But!” you mutter, “That’s a silly example! We’re not asking people to Change the way they hunt nor are we putting their lives in danger! We’re only asking them to Change the way they work!” Really? There’s a difference? Consider the following:

For the past five years you’ve done business in a particular manner and made money and grown globally, expanding into new markets. When someone suggests a new way of doing business, you are our imaginary hunter in the only way that’s important. You will protect your ‘status quo’ at any cost, until you prove to yourself, that changing the way you do business is the correct course of action. Then, and only then, will you willingly adopt a new way of doing business.

You’re being asked to stop doing something that worked well in the past. You’re being offered a new, untested method of doing something you’ve never seen before. You have the right, even a responsibility to yourself, management and stakeholders to ask... Why? Why should you stop doing something you’ve proven works, and start doing something you’ve never done before?

You should even go a bit further and demand that the person proposing the Change prove that what they are proposing is best for the company. Not protecting past successes is irresponsible. Not protecting past investments is a symptom of someone who doesn’t care about the future.

Here’s an observation regarding the process of Change. The biggest obstacle to future Change is past success, the strongest motivation? Recent failure.

Asking ‘why’ is a rational and reasonable way to respond to Change. Any organization, manager or guru, suggesting that the question, ‘Why should I Change?’ is unreasonable, is 100%, categorically wrong.

It’s not wrong just because it dishonors the past, it’s wrong because it makes us vulnerable to a future filled with indiscriminate and ill-advised Change. That is the real function of ‘resistance.’ It’s a Change ‘filter’ or ‘gatekeeper.’ It’s purpose is to select from all possible Changes, that particular Change, which is most appropriate to the current situation.

The problem today, is not just that we face Change, but that there is so much Change attempting to drive us in conflicting directions. Pick up The Futurist and you could, if you really believed in adopting all Change without discretionary resistance, create enough Change projects to last you a decade. And next month, when the next issue arrives, you could add another decade’s worth of changes to your already overflowing plate. Needless to say, this is not an optimum behavior pattern, it would make lemmings look rational.

The erroneous belief that ‘resistance is bad’, is an illusion, it’s not reality based. Instead of using resistance as a rudder to steer us into the future, we think it’s an anchor tying us to the past.

‘Resistance’ in the form of the question, ‘Why should we adopt this Change?’ is the only hope we have to prioritize our workload. Without it, how can we guide our organizations through the onslaught of Change? If we ban resistance, if we outlaw it and fire those who practice it, then we lay our organizations open to never-ending, ill considered mayhem. Like getting rid of those misunderstood snakes, we would open ourselves to a plague of rats.

When it is not necessary to Change, it is necessary not to Change. Viscount L C Falkland

All of which leaves us in a quandary. If we accept, as we must, that some Change must be avoided, and that other Change must be accepted, then we need to devise a strategy to tell us which is which.

Our first impulse is to create a set of guidelines for choosing between two or more possible Changes. We have lots of experience in this area. Proven techniques include cost benefit analysis, return on investment calculations and risk analysis. We even have a well established protocol for assigning different weights to different features and benefits, transforming all complex decisions into a two-dimensional comparison.

There are so many tools available for deciding between several choices, that it would not be too much of an exaggeration to state this is the one area in management where we are ‘scientific’ in our methods.

This is all well and good, but this ‘scientific’ strategy usually, it doesn’t have to, ignores our earlier definition of ‘Change’. We described ‘Change’ as the act of replacing the old with the new. This means any Change selection process must , if it is to be effective and even ‘honest’, compare each and every possible option, not only with the alternatives but with what it is replacing.

This consideration of what is being replaced, brings at least four new questions to the table.

1) First and foremost, why is the Old Status Quo no longer sufficient? Is a Change being considered in order to remedy a deficiency? Or to seize an opportunity? The answer to this question will determine, to a large degree, how people will react to the Change.

2) What is the transition cost of going from where we already have, to the ‘new fangled method’? This is not just the cost of acquisition. It includes the disruption cost, the cost of training, the cost of temporary low morale, the cost of new hires, the cost of people leaving, the emotional cost of destroying ‘what once was.’

3) Is this ‘cost of transition’ justified by the incremental benefits of what is being proposed?

4) Does what is being proposed, support and reinforce existing core values?

The key concept here, is that Change does not occur in a vacuum, it takes place within an already well defined, established, protected and even, revered context.

If you’re the person selecting the next Change to adopt, then by the time you go through all of the above, and reach a decision, you will have convinced yourself that not only is this the correct Change, but that it is the only choice open to you. This means that if the transition period becomes unexpectedly difficult, you’ll be strongly motivated to continue with the Change, even if it’s only to protect the investment you made in the decision process, not to mention the need to protect your ‘ego’.

This particular Change, because of your involvement in the decision process, is for you at least, relatively easy and seemingly free of ‘resistance.’ It would be unfortunate if you thought that this is true for the others whom this Change will affect.

Bringing us back, full circle, to our imaginary Hunter. While we, the ‘decision makers’ have gone through an elaborate process to arrive at our choice of which Change to pursue, the hunter is presented not with a decision making process, but with a fait acompli. We’re Changing!

How can we make the ‘Hunter’ or the lowly worker, more accepting of the Change? The first, most powerful strategy is to involve them, like we were involved, in the decision process leading up to the Change. We know, based on our own experience, that this practically a foolproof method of getting someone to accept a Change. Unfortunately it’s not always possible.

What is possible is to share with the affected target audience, the thought processes you went through to arrive at your decision. Share the same questions you asked of yourself...

1) Why is the Old Status Quo no longer sufficient? etc. etc.

2) What is the transition cost of going to the ‘new fangled method’?

3) Is the transition cost justified by the benefits of what is being proposed?

4) How does the Change, support and reinforce existing core values?

That the same questions should be as important to the target audience, as they were to your own peace of mind, should not come as a surprise. If it does, then you need to ask yourself some deep and probing questions beyond the scope of this article.

In summary? Resisting Change is a normal and natural response to Change. It makes itself known mostly as a plea for a reason to Change. If there’s a reason for Change, provide it, if there’s no reason to Change, avoid it.

Author Information
Peter de Jager
Peter de Jager is a Change Management Consultant, Seminar Leader and Speaker. His presentations use humor to challenge the myths surrounding our understanding of the Change process and the benefits of technology. For more information, contact the FrogPond at 800.704.FROG(3764) or email susie@FrogPond.com

Copyright (Reprint Terms)
Copyright 2004, Peter de Jager. All right reserved. For information contact FrogPond at 800.704.FROG(3764) or email susie@FrogPond.com.