What do you think is the most common source of resistance to change?

Question

If you were a manager, what could you do to promote change and combat the source of resistance you identified?

Answer 1

Great question -and one that seems to have perplexed our species since the beginning.

I'm a believer that the source of resistance to change is actually a physiological imperative, that is, it's a basic element of human nature that is built in ... kind of like saying it comes with the territiory.

I use a rather simple assumption for this and that's the idea that our species has an indomitable survival instinct (or need) and that this primal compasss (if you will) always is working to keep us on the straight and narrow path of stasis.

In short, our hard-wiring (not our personality, nor our demographics, not even our intellect) strives to keep us alive (survival) and once in balance then anything that CHANGES that course is perceived (at, I believe, the deepest of levels, i.e., the unconscious) as dangerous and a direct threat to our survival.

Subsequently, the knee-jerk response to change is resistance.  However, most humans go on to make the needed adaptations to change without suffering emotional or physical pain (or withdrawal from the comforts of the previous established stasis).

As far as the role and responsibility of a manager relative to promoting chane and sustaining it, there are an infinite number of twists and turns that can be argued regarding what is best.  My take on managing others is to go easy on the business school standards and rely much more on the socio-psychological principles that govern all of human nature.

In any random sampling -including employees- a manager attempting to enact change is going to be faced with a percentage of the group who will be "early adapters," that is, they are comfortable with the need for change (growth and development) and accept it as opportunity.  These early adapters are actually the best ally a manager can have.

The next sub-set within the group are the "fence-sitters," and they are not hard-core holdouts who completely resist the change but are instead the skeptics who don't want to risk anything they already have... as such, they take a "wait and see" approach.  An effective manager will be sure to have the early adopters (or change agents) pair up with the "fence-sitters" to calm fears, reduce anxieties, and provide role-modelling to prove that the change is beneficial.

The most entrenched sub-set of the group are the full-blown resisters.  They simply are not budging -for anyone or anything.  Depending on a manager's philosophy and experiences, s/he may realize this group (and ironically, it's typically not the largest sub-set within the overall employee group) is not going to be on the "other side" once the change takes place and becomes the new statis.  As such, the hard-core resisters may in fact simply be ignored (as long as they are not trying to undermine the change) by the manager and other sub-groups with the idea that, in time, they will either come on board (so to speak) or seek employment elsewhere.

Please note:  there is plenty of empirical evidence -in both the business and psychological research literature- that verifys the high costs -and failure rates- of companies and management falsely believing that all employees need to be attended to when transition happens ... it's simply not true.  There are employess -much like customers- that, no matter what is done for them, they are not going to align themselves with the next edition ... no matter the benefit, nor the time dollars, and effort spent on trying to convince them.

Answer 2

"Change is good?"  "Change is bad?"  Never before in human history has the qualitative polarity of "change" been such an issue.  We even have a major presidential candidate basing his whole campaign on that one volatile buzz-word.  Even his rivals are picking it up and claiming that THEY, not HE are the TRUE purveyors of "change".  Even just promoting the concept of "change", with a scarce few details about WHAT will be changed and HOW it will be changed, has been enough to catapult him into a front-running position.

"Change is good?"  "Change is bad?"  The truth of the matter is that, in actuality, it is NEITHER.  Like most abstract values, it is totally NEUTRAL and it IS as it DOES.

So, then, what really IS "the most common source of resistance to change"?  More than likely, as with resistance to most concepts, it would be negative experience with it in the past.  Those who resist it the most will probably be those who have experienced pointless change, just for the sake of change alone, that brought no benefit or sign of improvement and ended up causing more harm than good.

Knowing from experience that this can - and more often than not DOES -  happen, they are naturally wary when it comes up again.  We all see so much change around us in our society and in our personal lives and, across the board, the ratio of negative to positive results has been staggering!  They have watched our culture make one bad move after another and have made choices in their own private lives that have sent them tumbling out of the frying pan and into the fire way too many times!

Tthe best way to combat that kind of resistance is to PERSONALIZE it.  That is, show people, first off, WHY the change is needed.  Show them exactly WHAT the existing problem is that this change will fix, and then show them HOW it will fix that problem for THEM - as individuals.  Show them the heat and discomfort in the frying pan and then show them that there is someplace outside it to land, BESIDES in the fire!

Trying to fix what ISN'T broken is usually a recipe for disaster, but fixing what really IS broken should bring a rousing cheer from everyone.  You just have to convince them that it really IS broken and the planned, upcoming change really WILL fix it.

Answer 3

Give everyone frontal lobatomies so they don't question the stupidity of the decisions or reasons for the change.

Answer 4

Fear

If you are talking about employees then its probably fear of more work without compensation with more pay.  You should find out how the change will affect them and explain the benefits of the change.  If you can't find any benefit for your employees in the change, you should take some of the profits from the change and set them aside as a bonus to the ones dedicated to the change and show it through their work over the year.

If someone was going to change and there was nothing good in it for you, and it meant you had to do more for the same or less compensation would you be excited about it?

Answer 5

Complacency is the most common factor for the resistance to change. As a Manager it is simple to battle this and keep workers productive. You can focus on personal or professional levels. Even things like changing scenery will help. You can e-mail me if you want ideas.