6

Understanding and Dealing With Resistance to Change

What's Inside This Chapter

The Roots of Resistance

It's a widely accepted maxim that people naturally resist change. Most change books you find—including this one—have chapters on understanding and dealing with change resistance. It makes sense. Change initiatives seem to always spawn resistance. It's hard to argue that people naturally embrace change when one observes the amount and intensity of resistance to nearly all change efforts.

This chapter begins in the same way chapter 1 did—with a contrarian's argument. Chapter 1 argued that people were naturally drawn to change, that people seek it out and embrace change as part of being alive. Consider some common life changes that most people experience during their lifetimes:

• discovering the joy of reading
• making a new friend
• learning how to talk with someone of the opposite sex
• learning how to drive a car or ride the bus or subway
• stepping out into an independent life
• tackling a new job
• getting married
• having children
• seeking out job promotions and advancements.

As you scan this list, ask yourself which of these changes you've experienced. Did you personally seek out the change? Did you welcome it? Did you embrace the change of learning how to live on your own? Or wrapping your mind around a new book? Or meeting someone new? In most cases and for most people, the answer would be a resounding “yes!” Why do people typically view these changes as those that they hunger for? Why is this list of changes different from the changes that your organization might be trying to advance?

The answer lies very much in the locus of control. Who is driving the change? Who is influencing its course? Basically, whose change is it? When people are in the driver's seat of change and charting its course, they tend to embrace the change because they desire it and are making it happen on their own terms. But, when others are doing the driving and people feel trapped, powerless, or victimized by the change (and those who are doing the driving), it makes some sense that the reaction is resistance.

This is an important insight for change leaders. When people are masters of their future—whether it is learning how to walk or learning a new way to interact with customers—they are far more likely to embrace a change than to resist it. For this reason, the prescription for dealing with change resistance begins with change leaders doing whatever they can to shift the driving to those who are being asked to change. This won't be easy in many cases, but it will be far easier than forcing change upon people who don't want any part of the new direction because they don't see it as being their direction!

Common Reasons Why People Resist Change

Unfortunately, there will be times when you will encounter resistance. Despite your efforts to invite people to put their hands on the wheel or to help with charting the course forward, some people would much prefer just to complain about and fight the change. Many of the reasons why people would choose resistance over embracing a change involve the issue of control or influence over the change, but there are other, equally important reasons.

Ken Hultman (1998, p. 95) suggests that resistance occurs “at the moment when fear overtakes desire as our dominant motive.” So, why would “fear overtake desire” when change is introduced? John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger (1979) offer four primary factors that drive change resistance:

• fear of losing something of value (parochial self-interest)
• misunderstanding and lack of trust
• disagreements about the need for and merits of the change
• low personal tolerance for change.

Others, including Randall Dunham (1984) and Paul Strebel (1996), describe similar factors that lead to resistance to change. Effective change leaders recognize that some level of resistance goes with any change and, therefore, take proactive steps to better understand and deal with its causes early on in the process. Successful change leaders work hard at understanding the root causes of resistance and then work even harder at addressing the root causes. For some causes, such as perceived losses, the path to a resolution may be easy. For others—particularly around those related to trust and low personal tolerance for change—addressing resistance is likely to be more challenging.

Let's take a look at each one of these common sources of resistance and explore some possible leadership strategies for addressing their origins.

Fear of Losing Something of Value

Change, by its very nature, is a disruption of the status quo. If you're a change leader, that disruption is exactly what you want and what's needed for the organization to “unfreeze” and move in a new direction. If you're in the line of fire for change, that is, if the proposed change threatens to deprive you of the things that you value, then there's a good chance you will turn against the change.

The thing that people are most fearful of losing, of course, is specific to each individual. For some people, the loss of a job is devastating; for others, it would be only a temporary setback presenting an opportunity for growth. Change leaders need to spend time anticipating the range of real and perceived losses and be prepared to help people either realize that the loss is not likely or that the loss is real but will be offset by a gain.

Table 6-1 lists the 12 most common losses that some people may experience for some changes. These “some” and “may” qualifiers are important because the change may or may not lead to these losses for some of those in the path of change. Your task is to help sort out these potential losses for people and the real likelihood of those losses happening.

Table 6-1. The most common perceived losses associated with change.

Loss	Description
1. Job Security	People may fear job loss or a loss of financial resources due to a reduction in their job or income level.
2. Psychological Comfort/Security	People want to feel safe, secure, and comfortable. They may perceive that the change threatens their level of safety, comfort, security, and self-confidence by reducing their level of certainty about the world around them.
3. Control Over One's Future	Related to the perceived loss of psychological comfort and security, people may perceive that the change threatens their ability to control their future actions, decisions, and identity.
4. Purpose or Meaning	People may perceive that their fundamental purpose and meaning in life is jeopardized. Change, they believe, threatens to take away their identity, hopes, aspirations, and a meaningful life.
5. Competence	People may believe that the change will reduce their ability to do their work or jobs well. They may feel unprepared for new responsibilities and duties, possibly leading to embarrassment and a reduction in self-confidence.
6. Social Connections	People may believe that their social contacts with customers, coworkers, or managers will disappear. This can lead them to believe they've lost their sense of belonging, their role in the community, or social cohesion with a team, group, or the organization. Because so much of our sense of self evolves through our relationships with others, this perceived loss tends to be the most traumatic for people.
7. Territory	People may lose a sense of certainty about the territory or area that used to be theirs. This territory includes physical workspace, expertise, job titles, assignments, and psychological space.
8. Future Opportunities	When a change threatens anticipated rewards and opportunities, people fear they may lose a deserved reward that they have worked hard to achieve.
9. Power	Change can threaten a person's sense of power and influence in their organization and life. People may perceive that the change takes away part of what enables them to feel effective.
10. Social Status	People may perceive that the change will erode the status that they have achieved (through competence, influence, hard work, and so forth) compared to other people. What they have worked hard to accomplish may disappear.
11. Trust in Others	People may lose their trust and faith in others—especially leaders and others whom they have admired in the past—when the impending change threatens to take away other things of value.
12. Independence and Autonomy	When change is introduced, the perceived loss of competence creates a related secondary loss of independence/autonomy when people perceive that their ability to be self-directed and self-managed will be eroded.

Which of these losses is the most traumatic for people? Because each person responds differently to the perceived losses of change, it is hard to generalize and assume that the loss of job security is any more or less significant than loss of territory or competence. What is clear, however, is that any loss that is important to the person who is in the path of change and is perceived as real or as inevitable is likely to bring out resistance.

 

Noted

The loss of social connections during a change poses great trauma. Clinical psychologist Cynthia Scott (1995) argues that of all the losses people might experience during change, the loss of social connections is the hardest to bear. Because people's sense of self is defined through their relationships with others, when change pulls these relationships apart, the resulting stress can be hard to take. Scott's research is supported by the American Psychological Association (2004), which has stated that “caring and supportive relationships within and outside the family” can bolster a person's ability to cope with change.

 

A key responsibility for change leaders when seeking to deal with the perceived losses of change is to first find out what losses people perceive will occur due to the change. Once these are uncovered, you will be able to more effectively respond by helping people see that the losses (a) aren't likely to occur, (b) that they are likely to occur but the consequences for them won't be as severe as they fear, or (c) that the losses are likely to occur but that they will be offset with an even greater gain or benefit for them. When the losses are real for people, instead of convincing them not to be concerned about these losses, focus on helping them see the hidden opportunities that have opened up for them.

Misunderstanding and Lack of Trust

Trust lies at the foundation of so many aspects of organizational life that it should be no surprise that frequently it is at the root of resistance. If people believe that the change is designed to take advantage of them, if they don't trust the motives or agenda of those who are leading the change, or if they don't believe that change leaders are acting in their best interest, then people are likely to push back against the change.

 

Noted

Trust is the personal belief or faith that others, through their action or inaction, will contribute to another person's well-being and refrain from inflicting injury or damage.

 

Trust typically involves

• drawing inferences about others' motives
• having predictability and consistency in the relationship
• accepting some level of risk and vulnerability
• giving the other party the benefit of the doubt in situations in where one party does not have full control.

Misunderstanding, which is more common when there is a lack of trust in the motives of the change leaders, is a significant driver of change resistance. Misunderstanding occurs most often when people don't have the information that they need to do their work and to make decisions about their future. As noted in chapters 4 and 5, you need to increase significantly the frequency and quality of communication during the implementation of change. In the absence of good information, people use their imagination to “fill in the blanks” of change, and, where there is mistrust, their imagination is likely to tend toward the dark side.

Unlike fear of loss—which can usually be responded to (but not always successfully) with reason, discussions, and offsetting benefits—trust and misunderstanding are much more difficult to address. As discussed in Table 6-2, there are five kinds of trust in human relationships. Implicit, simple, and conditional trust are the types of trust that define most trust-based relationships at work. As people's trust for a leader or others in an organization is tested or challenged by actions and events, these lower levels of trust can, under the right circumstances, evolve and mature into earned or authentic trust.

Authentic trust is useful in organizations because it is anchored in real experience and interactions. With authentic trust, there is a level of understanding and connection between people. This understanding and connection give people some license and freedom to take actions that affect the other party in the relationship. Authentic trust enables employees to have confidence in the intentions and integrity of their organizational leaders. Although they might not always understand why leaders do what they do, the employees can be confident that the leaders are acting in ways that are consistent with both the organization's and their own best interests.

Table 6-2. Types of trust in relationships.

Type of Trust	Explanation
Implicit or Basic Trust	People begin life trusting others. Vulnerable infants must rely on and trust others; this implicit trust carries people into nearly all of their adult relationships. Life experiences, of course, shape the level of this implicit trust. For example, if a person is repeatedly betrayed by trusted others, that person will become wary of trusting anyone.
Simple Trust	Simple trust is based on innocence and a need to trust others simply to survive. It is trust that has gone unchallenged and untested. Simple trust is usually taken for granted and exists unnoticed until, suddenly, it is lost. (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 59-63)
Blind Trust	Blind trust is based on self-denial. When people trust someone blindly, they see only what they need to see and refuse to look, ask questions, or truly comprehend what their eyes and ears tell them. People sometimes rely on blind trust when implicit trust fails them and they want to keep on believing everything's okay. (Solomon & Flores, 2001, p. 81)
Conditional Trust	Conditional trust is trust within specific boundaries or parameters. With conditional trust, a person trusts a party in one dimension (for example, making good business decisions) but not necessarily in another dimension (driving your project team in a car to a conference). Almost all trust is conditional. (Solomon and Flores, 2001, p. 81)
Earned or Authentic Trust	Over time, implicit trust relationships are tested by the events, decisions, actions, and circumstances that occur in the relationship. Over time, this implicit trust is replaced with earned or authentic trust: It is a trust that has been shaped by the dynamic interaction of two parties. It is authentic in that it reflects the true nature of the trust level between two parties. With authentic trust, each party now more clearly understands the trust boundaries, parameters, and limits within which he or she will operate. Each party knows how far he or she can trust the other party.

When the real-world testing of authentic trust occurs, however, there are times when the threads of trust are frayed. When this happens, the level of trust can head in the opposite direction: toward its disintegration. And, once authentic trust deteriorates—because the loss of trust has evolved from real interactions and a perceived betrayal of trust—rebuilding or reclaiming it, especially during the introduction of change, is an uphill challenge. Table 6-3 offers a list of some possible actions that leaders can take to begin rebuilding authentic trust.

Disagreements on the Merits of the Change

Sometimes the fear of loss or mistrust isn't the issue. Sometimes it comes down to simply a disagreement that the proposed change is one that's worth pursuing. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) suggest that these disagreements may be due to differing assessments as to the benefits resulting from the change and whether the proposed change is an appropriate remedy for the original problem or challenge faced by the organization.

Change leaders and organizational managers, for example, may view a proposed change as central to the organization's ability to be a successful player in an increasingly global marketplace. The pain of the change (for example, workplace disruptions brought on by broadening job responsibilities, reductions in workforce, achieving Six Sigma in production, becoming ISO 9000 certified, and so forth), from the leader's perspective, is more than offset by the fact that the company will be better able to sustain its success long into the future. Those on the front line, however, may see the disruptions as creating high levels of uncertainty and confusion without providing any guarantees that all the changes will strengthen the company. Even if the employees see that there is a need for change, they may believe that the leaders are making the wrong choices or making changes that introduce chaos but don't provide long-term security.

Because the greater the differences in these perspectives of the change or even the need for change, the greater the likely resistance to the change, it follows that you should focus on creating a shared understanding of the challenge ahead and of the change vision. Increasing your communications and interactions with those on the front line and others affected by the change is critically important for creating this shared vision.

Table 6-3. Leader actions for rebuilding authentic trust.

1. Understand Its Cause	Before you initiate a corrective action plan for rebuilding trust, make sure you understand the underlying causes of the mistrust or distrust. How did the trust first break down? When did you first realize the problem? Was the loss of trust reciprocal? Which came first? Are there multiple causes?
2. Determine the Extent of Trust Deterioration	Understanding the depth and breadth of the loss of trust will help you focus your rebuilding efforts and ensure that your response is in proportion to the problem. Going public with a mea culpa, if such is even necessary, may be the wrong action if only a few individuals are truly affected.
3. Acknowledge the Problem	Calling out the problem by acknowledging the lack of trust will get things rolling. It will also disarm people who cynically believe that nothing will change. Begin the dialog that must occur by acknowledging that there is a problem and stating that you're interested in working through the problem.
4. Start Small, but Do Something!	Take the first step, perhaps a baby step, to demonstrate your willingness to work on rebuilding the trust that once existed. The best place to begin is by simply increasing the quality and frequency of communications. Begin by talking about expectations, needs, frustrations, opportunities, and so forth, anything to begin building more understanding into your interactions with the other party.
5. Implement Changes	Based upon what you've heard or learned from the other party, begin to implement changes in behavior, actions, communication, methods, and so on that reflect that you have heard the other party and that you're prepared to do your part to improve trust. Start small and begin the rebuilding of the road one brick at a time. At the same time, give the other party the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity (and space) to take small steps in your direction.
6. Check Your Progress	How do you view the other party now? How might the other party view you and your actions? Are you both honoring your commitments to each other? Have you see a return of civility, respect, fairness, openness, reliability, and competence?
7. Don't Expect Miracles	Because authentic trust takes time and experience to develop, rebuilding it is more like restoring the vitality of an old farmstead than flipping a light switch; it is a process that may take years of hard work.

Consistent with the strategy proposed in chapter 4 as actions for creating a felt need for change (the first phase of the leading change model), bringing data-rich information into the consciousness of people at all levels of the organization can help create a deep level of awareness of why the organization needs to change. This conversation about the why of change can, if facilitated well, lead to a dialog around solutions and strategies for meeting this challenge. During this dialog, you can begin building awareness of possibilities and opportunities and looking for ways to bring together the differing perspectives on the road ahead.

The second dialog—around the change vision and the strategy about how to move forward—is your opportunity to understand the source of the differing perspectives on the change and to make adjustments to your own vision as you hear others' perspectives. Participation and involvement of potential resisters is a way to surface their differing perspectives and reservations about the change and then engage them in designing and implementing the change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Meaningful participation and involvement, if managed well, can lead to reduced resistance, greater ownership of and commitment to the change, and, most often, a better change initiative.

Low Personal Tolerance to Change

The final major source for resistance from Kotter and Schlesinger's (1979) list deals with aspects of the resister's personality, fears, and anxieties. Although most people have some short-term aversion to change—even for a positive change—some experience higher levels of these fears and anxieties. This aversion may be based in concerns as to whether they have the skills and capabilities to be effective in the new environment, but for others it may be simply anxieties with exchanging a certainty (“I know what is expected of me today”) with an uncertainty (“What will be expected of me tomorrow?”).

Table 6-4 lists the most common reasons why people might demonstrate resistance because of a low personal tolerance of change.

Reducing Resistance to Change

Given the variety of reasons why people might resist a change, it isn't surprising that it so easily surfaces. As a change leader, an important task you must undertake is identifying the causes of resistance and developing responses to these causes.

 

Noted

Edgar Schein (1999, p. 121-123) argues that, in order for change to take hold, “survival anxiety” (“If I don't change, will I survive?”) must be greater than “learning anxiety” (“Do I have what it takes to make it in the future?”). For some people, their learning anxiety is strong enough that there is little room to feel anxiety about survival. For them, the in-your-face question of “Can I do this job?” takes precedence over abstract questions about whether the organization is heading in the right direction.

 

Table 6-4. Common causes of people's low tolerance to change.

For each cause of resistance highlighted in this chapter, you have read some suggestions for possible leader actions. Table 6-5 offers a final integrative list that pulls together some of these suggestions and offers a few more approaches for effectively dealing with resistance.

Why Leaders Should Value Change Resisters

This chapter has focused on understanding the origins of resistance and then taking actions to reduce this resistance. Although every change leader should become a master at diagnosing and addressing resistance, leaders should also learn to celebrate what resisters bring to the change process.

Table 6-5. Leader actions for reducing resistance to change.

Strategy	Leader Actions and Rationale
Encourage Participation	If people don't resist change as much as they resist being changed, then one effective way to reduce resistance is to provide them an opportunity for meaningful participation in designing and implementing the change. Through meaningful involvement and participation in designing and implementing the change, people's resistance tends to decline, commitment tends to increase, and the change vision and strategy tend to improve.
Use Communication	During a change, if people don't have information, then their imaginations fill the gaps in their knowledge. To ensure that people are operating with accurate and useful information and that they are then able to make informed decisions about the change, change leaders need to pay particular attention to the frequency and quality of communication. Face-to-face communication is best because it supports true dialog, but all forms of communication should be used to ensure that the change message gets out frequently and clearly. Team and company meetings, newsletters, email bulletins, telephone conference calls, and brown-bag lunch discussions are all ways of getting the message out about the change vision, strategy, progress reports, milestone accomplishments, and so forth.
Organizational Support	Training: To address employees' anxieties about their ability to perform in the new environment (concerns about competency), ensure that your change plan anticipates the need for employee training and provides a way to deliver this training in a timely way.
	Equipment and Tools: When a change involves the integration and use of new equipment or tools (for example, machines, software, or hardware), ensure that people are trained on and have access to these tools before and as the change is introduced.
	Access to Information: Communication related to the specifics of how to perform new tasks, who to go to with questions, what the new performance expectations will be, how performance will be evaluated, and so forth helps people feel more sure and secure about what will be expected from them and who can assist them with understanding their new responsibilities.
Provide Emotional Support	More than simply providing people the tools, equipment, information, and other resources that they need to get the job done, change leaders should also work at providing emotional support that builds self-confidence in those doing the work. Helping to create a sense of competence and efficacy in those being asked to take on new tasks and responsibilities can overcome the “learning anxiety” that Edgar Schein (1999) writes about.
Emphasize the Benefits and Provide Incentives	Help people see the hidden opportunities in the change by guiding them in exploring the benefits that will likely come their way if they embrace the change. Provide specific and valued incentives for those who adopt the new behaviors. Make sure you follow through by providing these incentives when people engage in the desired behaviors and achieve the desired goals.
Negotiate With and Co-Opt Key Resisters	Identify the leaders among those who are resisting the change and work with these leaders to understand their questions and concerns with the change. Then, based upon their issues, make adjustments in your change vision and strategy. This doesn't mean you should compromise on your core change objectives, outcomes, and strategies, but you should be able to find some areas where adjustments can and perhaps should be made. This approach demonstrates your openness to alternative viewpoints and can help turn an adversary into an ally.
Provide Negative Consequences	Although not the first strategy you will use in response to resistance, providing negative consequences to those who work against the change should be part of your mix of strategies. People need to know that you're serious about moving forward with the change. Make it clear that, with or without their cooperation, the change is going to happen but that you'd prefer it happen with their cooperation. In addition, indicate that their failing to help design and implement the change will strip them of the ability to make the change work for them on their terms. Your final course of action in providing negative consequences is to identify specific negative outcomes that will happen to them if they fail to adapt to the new behaviors and practices. Negative consequences, although often effective at getting immediate results (compliance), rarely engender commitment. Another downside of providing negative consequences is that it often results in unintended consequences. As you learned in chapter 1, the rule of unintended consequences indicates that you may or may not get the compliant behavior you want, but you will increase the likelihood of their resistance going underground and surfacing in counterproductive and sometimes destructive behaviors.

Yes, change resistance should not be seen as something to eliminate but as something to better understand and even celebrate. Resistance is a signal that something is amiss and that something about the change or about the organization needs to be brought to light and discussed.

According to Paul Lawrence (1969) of the Harvard Business School, “…when resistance does appear, it should not be thought of as something to be overcome” but as a “red flag—a signal that something is going wrong.” He argues that when resistance occurs it's time to listen to find out exactly what the problem is. “What is needed,” he contends, “is not a long harangue on the logics of the new recommendations but a careful exploration of the difficulty.” Ken Hultman (1979, p. 54) offers a similar argument, suggesting that “there are times when resistance is the most effective response available” when the proposed change may actually lead to an erosion in organizational effectiveness and performance.

Viewing resistance as a positive force within the change process may take some getting used to, but adopting this mindset will be critical as you work to design your change plan and build employee commitment to making the change work. Table 6-6 summarizes the major reasons why you and other change leaders should celebrate those who resist change and then work with the resisters to help move the change forward.

Getting It Done

This chapter walked you through the causes of resistance and offered insights into the actions that you and other change leaders can take to address its root causes. The chapter concluded with an argument that resistance can play an important, constructive role within the change process. It's now your turn to extract some useful insights and actions to guide your own practice.

Exercise 6-1 asks you to reflect on the potential causes of resistance to the change that you and others may be proposing for your organization or team and to list some possible actions you will take to address these causes.

Table 6-6. Why change leaders value resisters.

Exercise 6-1. Defining the origins of change resistance.

Reflect upon the push back on the change that you and others are introducing to your team or organization. What might explain this resistance? Review the list of common causes of resistance described in the chapter and the reasons behind these causes. Then, pull your answer together and complete this exercise.

With your potential causes identified, develop a list of possible actions and strategies for addressing these causes. Feel free to draw on ideas from Table 6-5.

 

Exercise 6-2 invites you to identify the positive contributions made by those who are actively resisting the change. Why should you say thanks to those who are working against the change?

Exercise 6-2. Valuing the contributions of change resisters.

To practice finding and extracting the value from those who offer resistance to the change you are introducing, reflect upon the push back from others and identify at least three positives from their resistance. How will you express your thanks for the value of their resistance? Describe how you will express your appreciation for the positive contributions from their resistance.

 

As you have learned in this chapter, resistance is a powerful force working against a change that must be both understood and addressed directly by those leading a change. One important human characteristic that influences the degree and intensity of resistance to a given change is that of resilience—the capacity to bounce back after experiencing adversity or stress. Resilience is the focus of the next chapter.