EXECUTIVE UPDATE MAGAZINE
by Merianne Liteman and Jeffrey Liteman

Handling Resistance to Change

As CEO, you decide – after careful consideration – to outsource some of the services that have traditionally been provided in-house. No one will lose his or her job or be demoted because you can reassign affected employees to work on more important tasks. This appears to be a win-win situation for the organization as well as its employees, and you expect the change initiative to be greeted enthusiastically by one and all. So you’re surprised when you encounter resistance not only from the reassigned employees but from other employees who are not directly affected. This resistance to change threatens the success of the effort.

Wasn’t it Isaac Newton who observed that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?"

If changes are in store for your organization, expect resistance. In fact, the more you push for change, the more resistance you’re likely to encounter. How successful you are in making significant change depends in large measure on how you manage this
resistance.

Whether it’s a small change, such as modifying a program or event, or a major reorganization or refocusing of the organization’s mission, be prepared to deal skillfully with resistance – even in the unlikely event that everyone in the organization agrees that change is necessary.

Change = Loss
Change is resisted simply because it means giving something up. Every step forward requires leaving something behind. It’s standard human behavior for people to be reluctant to let go of things that matter to them – yet they can’t move forward until they loosen their grip on what’s holding them back.

In the workplace, staff themselves might not understand the real source of their resistance. In the outsourcing example cited above, an employee might be unhappy about severing her connection with colleagues and vendors, or with the organization members she previously served. Another employee might feel anxious about altering familiar routines, fear a loss of status, or be reluctant to give up the prestige associated with being expert at his old jobs. He might just be upset about losing the office he had occupied for years or the phone number he’d always had.

Don’t underestimate the reasons for resistance to change. Perhaps an employee has concerns about whether the new service providers can support their clients as well as he does, or whether the new arrangement is really in the organization’s best interest. These issues, and the resistance they generate, are valid. What’s more, these concerns represent different perspectives or insights that a smart manager would be wise to take into consideration. But first, it’s important to deal with the sense of loss thatemployees experience whenever change – large or small – is in the air.

Coping with Loss
Keep in mind that resistance to change stems largely from the reality or perception of loss, not necessarily from the change initiative itself. Promoting the wisdom of the change, therefore, is unlikely in and of itself to build support. You must also address that sense of loss. That’s why the first step in managing resistance is to acknowledge openly what you and others are losing. You might think such candor would only serve to "stir things up," but experience shows that suppressing this discussion causes far greater turmoil in organizations than engaging in it. All those touched by the change must learn to let go of the past before they can seize the future. A structured opportunity to focus on what employees will be leaving behind will help them move on.

The next step is to find ways to help employees understand that not all is being lost. In the outsourcing example, the affected employees could be feeling like their prior work was not valued. Finding ways to show public appreciation for the skills they bring to the organization can relieve these feelings. Encourage them to accept additional responsibilities in their new work.

In a larger change effort, such as a reorganization, remember that there are many things that your organization does well that you don’t want to change. The change effort should promote, not cast doubt on, the organization’s core values and the reasons it exists. Treat the past with respect, not as some cancer you wish to eradicate. In addition, recognize publicly that the changes you are proposing today are built on the successes of the past.

People are more likely to adopt change if they can hang on to some of the things that have mattered most to them. One company dealt effectively with this issue by having everyone write down what they didn’t want to lose in the change process. The president of the organization – who read every statement aloud to the entire staff – publicly committed herself to retain those things the employees prized most in the company. To this end, the company posted "We don’t want to lose..." signs throughout its offices to drive home the message that not everything was changing.

No matter what, change is scary; it’s no wonder that few people seek it out or embrace it. Human survival instincts naturally predispose us to avoid dangerous conditions, and the unknown and the unpredictable usually look pretty dangerous at first glance. That’s why many of us prefer the certainty of misery to the misery of uncertainty. This is as true for those at the top of the organization as it is for middle managers, program staff, board members, and volunteers.

Overcome or Conquer?
Resistance can remain long after employees have accepted their losses and grown more comfortable with the idea of change. One reason is that some employees may have real concerns about the chances of achieving the objectives the organization is seeking.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency among senior managers to view these concerns as obstacles and, therefore, seek merely to overcome them. This can be a mistake. A wise executive needs to listen carefully to thoughtful critiques of a change initiative, whatever the source – fellow executives, employees, organization members, and others with a stake in the organization’s success. People with different perspectives, different backgrounds and experiences, and different concerns can often provide valuable information and insights about what course to follow – can even keep an organization from running aground.

A savvy leader will welcome such perspectives, even if they appear in the form of resistance to the change initiative. The CEO of an organization we worked with had decided to change the software the publications department was using because he had had many complaints from writers and editors about how the old software was no longer adequate for the new workload. He was convinced that a change was necessary.

Nevertheless, he didn’t act unilaterally. Instead, he asked a cross-section of current software users, senior executives, middle managers, and employees from other departments in the organization to look at the situation and make recommendations to the executive committee. After considering many alternatives to the old software, the "task force" concluded that while the old software was far from ideal, changing it for the publications department only would lead to incompatibility of internal systems and create communication problems that would be difficult and costly to resolve. Therefore, retaining the old software was the best alternative for the organization as a whole, and because the writers and editors were part of the decision-making process, they supported that decision. The CEO and the executive committee agreed with the assessment, and no change was made.

This is a good example of how – sometimes – resistance to a change initiative can save an organization from going down the wrong path and making costly mistakes.

Stuck in the Middle
Once you have dealt with employees’ sense of loss and carefully considered their concerns, you might think you have conquered all resistance to the change. But there is at least one more type of resistance to be managed.

Human nature mimics another of Newton’s physical laws, that of momentum. Just as objects in motion tend to remain in motion and bodies at rest tend to remain at rest, people tend to want to continue doing what they’re accustomed to doing – even if what they’ve been doing isn’t appropriate, productive, or healthy, and even if they really do want to change. Familiarity breeds content.

As anyone who’s tried to master golf or tennis knows only too well, the most difficult aspect of learning a new technique is unlearning the old ones. By the same token, because organizational change nearly always requires unlearning and letting go of old ways of doing business before new ways can be fully implemented, change efforts often flounder. In fact, an organization might actually perform less effectively at first.

One reason is that employees become, in a sense, temporarily incompetent. At this juncture, neither the old ways of doing business nor the new ways work very well. This uncertainty can breed anxiety, resentment, and doubt about oneself and the organization. In these cases, the wisdom of the change is often called into question – even from its strongest and earliest supporters – and there is a powerful imperative to give up and go back to the tried and true and comfortable.

During this time, absenteeism, illness, and errors may increase while employees struggle to understand new priorities and practices and to decode mixed signals.

Conflict may break out between those who want to push forward with the change and others who believe things were better before.

Managing resistance at this stage of a change effort is crucial not only to the success of the change itself, but also to ensuring that the organization doesn’t lose sight of its core values during the transition.

This can also be a period of immense creativity in which new solutions to old problems emerge as habitual ways of working are transformed. This will only happen, however, if you are willing to listen to others and to consider tweaking the changes themselves and addressing aspects of the organization’s operations that are outside the scope of the change you planned.

Transforming Resistance
Managing resistance to change requires a change in attitude about resistance. Rather than seeing resistance as something to overcome, you will be more successful in making lasting change in your organization if you manage resistance by recognizing it as a potentially positive force, and channeling its energy and passion to drive change.

Furthermore, the more people brought into the process and the sooner they are involved, the less resistance there is likely to be. It’s also more likely that a change initiative will succeed. Top management does not have a monopoly on good ideas or commitment to the success of the organization. On the contrary, middle managers and program staff often have a better understanding of the issues and possible solutions than top managers, and if engaged as serious professionals, are likely to be as deeply committed to the organization’s long-term success as you are.

One company which was undergoing a massive transformation process applied these principles with outstanding results. During an offsite retreat, the staff reached consensus on how they wanted the company to change. Everyone, from the president to the mail room clerk, became part of change task forces responsible for developing strategies to make the company’s new vision a reality. The staff was so excited about the possibilities of doing business differently that the task forces started meeting voluntarily on Saturdays to generate more ideas to move the process forward. In the end the staff felt like owners of the company –fully vested in its success.

Trust is key to having everyone feel like a partner in the change process. The bad news is that trust cannot be established overnight if you haven’t already invested in creating a trusting relationship among your employees and with your board and membership. The good news is that trust can be created if senior managers are willing to commit themselves to the task.

Giving Up Power
Giving up power is difficult. But establishing trust inevitably means loosening the reins of control, giving up some power, and learning to live with uncertainty. It requires confidence and takes courage. Not all executives are equal to the task or eager to take it on. After all, most rose to the positions they hold through years of making decisions, accumulating and using power, and maintaining control of people and processes they were responsible for.

But times have changed. The work place has changed. And attitudes about power and control are changing as well. Successful organizations recognize that decisions reached by broad consensus are often sounder and more creative than those handed down from on high – and have a far greater likelihood of being implemented successfully.

Who hasn’t experienced frustration when a decision he or she made isn’t carried out promptly or at all? What good is having power when edicts are ignored or resisted? This frustration illustrates the myth of power, which leads to the paradox of power: If power is the ability to get things done, we have more of it when we give some away.

This does not mean abdication of responsibility. Rather, it means managing smarter to achieve positive results. When implementing change, it means creating conditions under which actual or potential resistance can be transformed into a positive force.

Nurturing Partnership
One way to harness the power of resistance is to create an atmosphere in which risk-taking is encouraged, well-intentioned mistakes are not merely tolerated but celebrated, and people are rewarded for speaking out and sharing their concerns, insights, and ideas.

One of our clients issues "Get Out of Jail Free" cards to its employees, so they knew they could make mistakes without fear of punishment. When employees came up with ideas, no matter how unconventional, they were encouraged to try them out as long as they were consistent with the organization’s vision and goals. The director of this organization was fond of saying, "If you haven’t made a mistake lately, you probably haven’t been doing your job as well as you could." This leader understood that he and the organization as a whole would learn from those mistakes – and they did.

Another organization presents "Giraffe Awards" to employees who "stick their necks out" by trying or proposing something new and different, whether the new ideas succeeded or not. The result: lots of new ideas to try, some of which were brilliant and helped move the organization forward.

When employees receive recognition for creative thinking, for taking chances, and for expressing their ideas (and their concerns), the organization will reap rewards. Treating everyone with a stake in the future of the organization as a partner will encourage them to think and act like partners who wish to improve the organization’s performance and share in its successes.

One way to nurture this sense of partnership is to involve as many employees, volunteers, members of the board, and other members as possible in as many strategic decisions as feasible. This may sound unmanageable, but it can be accomplished without turning the work of the organization on its head. A technique that works well is an organizational retreat.

A retreat can take a variety of forms, depending on the organization’s requirements and constraints, as long as it provides an open forum for participants to define concerns, explore ideas, share information, propose changes, and monitor implementation. For relatively small organizations that can shut down for a day or two or meet over a weekend, a retreat can include all employees. Or, it could involve a broad representative group of the staff, board, and members, or focus on one group – everyone in a particular department, for example, or all middle managers.

The form a retreat takes depends on the organization, its needs, and its unique set of circumstances. The only fixed requirement is that the effort have full support from the top. Without that commitment, a change initiative is unlikely to succeed.

Transparency is another key to successful change. In fact, it is essential to keep people well informed. Lack of information is to change what lack of oxygen is to a living organism. When accurate information isn’t forthcoming in a timely and forthright way from those involved in the change initiative, rumors quickly fill the information vacuum, and rumors breed mistrust, which is toxic to partnership.

When It Just Isn’t Working
Sometimes the source of an employee’s resistance is a difference in deeply-held values that cannot be accommodated in your organization’s change effort. In this case, it is important to recognize that everyone’s interests might be better served if this employee moved on to another organization more closely aligned with her values. But beware of deciding too hastily who is irreconcilably "not with the program."

We worked with a government agency where a few people consistently assumed the roles of cynics and critics in dealing with the change process. No matter what was done in response to their concerns, it wasn’t enough. These people gained reputations as nay-sayers and trouble-makers. Top management didn’t write them off, however, and interestingly, when the organization was forced to merge into a larger entity, these critics were among the most vigorous defenders of the more effective processes their organization had created.

Their protests that "this isn’t working" became "we have to make sure that our new way of doing business survives inside the new organization." Their apparent resistance to the changes that had been taking place was really a passion for the goals and values of the organization and a strong desire to see it succeed. Because the leadership took them and their concerns seriously and continued to involve them in the change initiatives and implementation, their constant critiques were transformed into energy that moved the organization forward. And their defense of the organization and the changes it had made helped boost morale and rally the troops – a wonderful example of how resistance was channeled into productive work.

Leaders in today’s organizations must model the ideals of trust and risk-taking. By publicly exhibiting these characteristics, they set the stage for turning natural and inevitable resistance to change into a shoulder-to-the-wheel, we’re-all-in-this-together commitment to positive change that all organizations need to survive and thrive.

Resistance is energy. It represents passion – what people care about. Managed unskillfully (or not at all), it will be an obstacle to change. But by managing it well, organization leaders can tap its energy and use it to fuel significant and beneficial change.

Return to Top | Return to Previous Page | Return to Home