Managing Change
Part 1
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he also writes monthly columns for CIO Magazine and Computerworld Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
Resistance isn't Futile
There's a short sighted belief brewing in some upper management boardrooms. The belief is this, "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 the snakes. It's only after you've solved your first problem, that you come face to face with an even larger problem, a plague of rats. It's only then you begin to understand that snakes were the solution to a problem you didn't even know had been solved. That a certain number of snakes are necessary to manage the rat population.
If we strive to eradicate all resistance to change, then we are ignoring the legitimate function of 'resistance'. Resistance, like snakes, has had a lot of bad press, this discussion/presentation will attempt to correct the coverage.
To understand Change, one of the first tasks is to understand why we resist it.
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 that resistance has a legitimate function because you yourself sometimes resist Change, even if you only resist what you consider to be stupid Changes, then read on, you're halfway there.
Resistance is simply, a very effective, very powerful, very useful, survival mechanism.
Imagine a hunter in the distant past who hunted saber toothed kitty cats with a very long, heavy, 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 little spear with feathers on the end, was more effective than his large, heavy, sturdy, dangerous and well tested spear.
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 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 countries, new markets. When someone suggests a new way of doing business, you are our imaginary hunter in the only way that's important.
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 your management and to your stakeholders and passengers 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 a fact relating to the process of Change. Your biggest obstacle to change is past success.
Asking 'why' is a rational and reasonable way to respond to Change. Any organization, or best selling book, suggesting that the question, 'Why should I change?' is a form of change sabotage, is 100% categorically wrong.
It's not wrong just because it discounts past achievements, it's wrong because it makes us vulnerable to indiscriminate and ill-advised change.
The problem today, is not just that we have to change, but that there is so much change attempting to blow us in conflicting directions. Pick up any Aviation magazine and you could, if you really believed in adopting all change without resistance, create enough change projects to last you a decade. And next month, when the next issue of that magazine arrives, you could add another decade's worth of changes to your overflowing plate.
'Resistance' in the form of the question, 'Why should we adopt this change?' is the only hope your organization has to prioritize your workload. Resistance is the only tool you have to guide your organization through the onslaught of change. If you ban resistance, if you outlaw it and fire those who practice it, then you lay your organization open to never-ending, ill considered mayhem. Like getting rid of those misunderstood snakes, you open your organization to a plague of rats.
The erroneous belief that 'resistance is bad', arises out of how we perceive resistance. We tend to see resistance as an anchor tying us to the safety of a protected harbor, when it's really a rudder steering us through the rising winds and tides of change.
On the other hand...
The above ode to resistance refers to 'rational resistance.' It is specifically designed to defend the function of resistance which seeks an honest answer to the question 'Why should I adopt this change?' The understanding being, that if the reasons to Change are persuasive enough, then the resistor will willingly adopt the change.
There are other forms of resistance.
There are those for whom no amount of evidence, proof, demonstrations or persuasion will suffice to get them to willingly adopt the change. We will assume for the sake of argument, that all issues of uncertainty about the future were sufficiently addressed by our efforts to describe the need and the benefits of the change.
What we're left with is simply the person doesn't want to Change. Why?
There are several possible reasons.
The most common, is simply that the change is being forced upon them and they've had no involvement with the process. It is amazing how deeply people can dig in their heels and refuse to budge when they decide they don't want to do something. It becomes nothing more than a contest of wills. It's also an example of what happens when one of the basic rules of change is ignored... ie. Involve people in the Change.
Another reason people persist in resisting, is when they truly have this problem with this thing called change. This, in my experience, is extremely rare. Most people, when something is properly explained to them, or when they are involved in the process, are open to Change.
There are others who resist for yet other reasons. It's not that they disagree with the benefits of a new and improved Status Quo... that doesn't factor into their thought process. Nor is it that they value where they are, over and above what the future might bring, to do that they'd have to consider the value of the future. To them it's simply a matter of "I don't want to Change."
Sometimes this translates to 'I'm afraid of learning something new, in case I find out I can't!" If this is true, then there are ways to assist them overcome their objection. Creating an environment where learning is the norm, where the early failures of any learning endeavor are not frowned upon, or punished, where they are even rewarded because failure is honoured as evidence of effort.
If management really does want to implement change they can create such a learning environment, it just takes commitment and leadership.
But sometimes... no matter how many things you do.... sometimes, on very rare occasions, you're left with an individual or two, who's only argument against change is simply "I don't wanna." Then and only then, after everything else has been done to the best of management's ability, then and only then, is the correct solution to act like a Borg... "Resistance is Futile... "
With this as some background to the Issue of Change, it is worthwhile to explore a Change Model.
End of Part one... here's part two.
© 2005,
Peter de Jager – Peter is passionate about change, how it affects both
individuals and organizations and allows them to grow and prosper. To contact him, and
host internal seminars on Change Management visit www.technobility.com
For
reprint permissions click here.
Resources: